Print this post Print this post

Michael Sandel’s Anti-White Populist Strategy to Defeat “Right-Wing Populism”

Michael Sandel

1,999 words

The rise of nationalist populism has shaken the globalist establishment far more than the rise of Islamic radicalism did in the 1990s and after. Muslim terrorism merely encouraged globalists to bring more “moderate” Muslims to the West to show undisturbed confidence in the value of diversity. The more Muslims have bombed the West, the more power “moderate” Muslims have gained by way of grants, affirmative action, spread of businesses, regulations against “Islamophobia,” and endless eulogies about their “indispensable” contributions. What globalists abhor are whites who affirm their national identities and call for limits to immigration. When a lone White Nationalist commits a terrorist act, the entire white race is condemned without a single journalist caring to write a story about a potential “backlash” against “moderate” white identitarians.

David Frum

Even for neocons, the enemy is no longer Islamic radicalism. The post-9/11 hysteria is over. Right and Left-wing globalists are now singularly focused on defeating the “xenophobia and strident nationalism” of white populist parties. The Right side wants to talk a bit more about the drawbacks of “high levels of immigration” as a way of defusing the “anti-immigration sentiment [that] was crucial to the election of Donald Trump.” These words come from David Frum, a key advocate of the destruction and maiming of Iraq in 2003.

Don’t I look trustworthy?

He calculates that “reducing immigration, and selecting immigrants more carefully” will facilitate the transformation of formerly white nations into racially diverse nations with greater ease while disenfranchising the “fascists” who would like Western nations to remain majority European. A “staunch supporter of Israel,” Frum believes it is possible to defuse white populism through carefully orchestrated sloganeering about “reduced immigration,” hardworking immigrants who make white nations prosper, and immigrants who commit “less crimes” than native whites.

Sandel’s Conniving “Moral” Compass

I believe in diversity and hate European populism, and that makes me profound and original.

But it is the Left-wing strategy I like to examine here via an examination of a generic article by another supporter of the racially nationalist state of Israel, Michael Sandel, with the title “Right-wing populism is rising as progressive politics fails – is it too late to save democracy?” This article regurgitates standard Leftist ideas reframed to defeat a new phenomenon: white populist movements. Sandel has long been known as a liberal theorist. Like many academics, he carries a big title, “Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government Theory at Harvard University Law School.” Wikipedia informs us that his course, “Justice”:

. . . was the university’s first course to be made freely available online and on television. It has been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world, including in China, where Sandel was named the “most influential foreign figure of the year.”

Odd, but true: Sandel is “a phenomenon” in China, “greeted by vast crowds,” with a popularity “usually reserved for Hollywood movie stars.” Sandel loves the Chinese back, advising this racially homogeneous nation (where immigration is prohibited and eugenics is a state program) on how it should use its ancestral moral Confucian values to adorn its capitalist practices.

For Sandel, the most ominous threat to “liberal democratic values” are whites who wish to limit immigration and who have pride in their cultural ancestry. Like every other academic clone, he assumes the Western liberal tradition demands that all white nations must be diversified, and that any white who questions diversity is inherently a Nazi planning to gas six billion immigrants. “These are dangerous times for democracy,” he warns. “Hungary and Poland” are too proud of their ancestral identities and are not willing to accept millions of Muslim immigrants; they are “falling into authoritarianism,” their governments and the majority of their people are reluctant to embrace the enriching diversity of Paris and Lost Angeles.

Sandel feigning a troubled humanitarian concern to sexual weirdo Charlie Rose

But for Sandel, it would be a mistake to condemn this “anti-immigration backlash” as “racist” without understanding “the complacencies of establishment political thinking that opened the way to Trump in the US and to right-wing populism in Britain and Europe.” It would be “a mistake to see only the bigotry in populist protest, or to view it exclusively as an economic complaint.” The ascendancy of Right-wing populism was a result of the “failure of progressive politics” to mount its own populist socialist movement.

The Democratic Party in the United States has become a party of a technocratic liberalism more congenial to the professional classes than to the blue-collar and middle-class voters who once constituted its base.

The Left across the West failed to promote stronger socialist policies challenging the Right-wing arguments that “market mechanisms are the primary instruments for achieving the public good.” It failed to develop a socialist-driven version of globalization against the “market-driven version” of the conservatives, leaving Western workers susceptible to Right-wing populism.

Left-wing Populism Before 1980

We are supposed to believe that if only Leftist parties in the West had pushed socialist populism further, rather than caving in to the Reagan-Thatcher reaction of the 1980s and embracing the promotion of “market-driven” global trade agreements during the 1990s, as well implementing cutbacks in welfare spending during the Clinton years, things would have worked just fine. If only Barack Obama had not “bailed out the banks on terms that did not hold them to account for the behaviour that led to the crisis and offered little help for ordinary citizens who had lost their homes,” but had instead promoted higher spending on black schools, higher wages for whites, higher welfare for everyone, and further environmental regulations, white workers would have quietly accepted their replacement by foreign immigrants.

These observations are completely out of tune with the actual historical data. Socialist populism, for one, was common across the West before the 1980s (never mind for the moment Obama’s claim that he was a real populist). The data “shows that public spending increased remarkably in the 20th century, as Western governments started spending more resources on social protection, education and healthcare.” The Reagan-Thatcher governments were a reaction against out of control government debts and stagflation, and even these reactions did not stop the growth of governments. Left-wing populism was the force behind “the steep growth of social spending in the second half of the 20th century [which] was largely driven by the expansion of public funding for healthcare and education.”

Could this populist “steep growth of social spending” have continued at an even higher pace without the Reagan-Thatcher slowdown, notwithstanding the fact that between 1964, when Lyndon Johnson declared the “war on poverty,” and 2012, after Obama’s first term, the “federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion“? How can the Left be blamed for not being socialist enough after such massive government expenditures pursuing equality?

Left-wing Populism in the Age of Diversity

Sandel hectoring Harvard students to hate white populism and embrace immigrant populism

Since Sandel is a socialist who favors diversity and thinks that minorities are held back by white racists, the renewed populist movement he has in mind involves even higher proportions of social spending earmarked exclusively for blacks and immigrants, notwithstanding the fact that these two groups have been the disproportionate beneficiaries of welfare at the expense of whites for many decades. He says that the way to fight white populism is to increase the fight against income inequality “by retraining workers whose jobs have disappeared due to globalization and technology; improving access to higher education; and removing barriers of race, ethnicity and gender” – as if affirmative action has not been in effect for decades.

Sandel offers zero economic analysis preferring the fluffy language academics impose on their naive students with no intellectual obstruction. He is correct that of the Americans “born in the bottom fifth of the income scale, 43 per cent will remain there, and only 4 per cent will make it to the top fifth.” But once we break these numbers according to race, we get a very different picture, with poverty intensifying among blacks due to the fact that 72 percent of blacks are born out of wedlock, and blacks and mestizos can’t compete educationally with whites and Asians. Sandel’s solution is the removal of “barriers of race,” for which he blames whites, while hiding from his students the statistical reality that “Asian Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States.”

Sandel is most ridiculous when he attacks the Democratic establishment for its “relentless emphasis on creating a meritocracy . . . The notion that the system rewards talent and hard work encourages the winners to consider their success their own doing.” Here we have a Harvard Professor, a member of the one-percent income elite in America, a man who has spent his entire adult life teaching rich kids PC politics, contriving a false appearance of populist goodness for white workers! Academics dislike white workers, whom they continually accuse of being bigoted and intolerant against their dearest students, that is, international students who are guaranteed citizenship, affirmative action, and worship by academics, whose official mission is promotion of diversity across all universities.

Sandel with median A- grade students he hopes will replace white students across the West

This charlatan even talks about the “populist” need to restore “the dignity of work” against an economic system that “accords less respect to the kind of work the working class does.” This is a key component of the renewed Leftist strategy: persuade white workers that ten-hour-a-week-academics really care for them, when all they care about is accumulating cultural capital while promoting a globalist immigration agenda.

Another component in Sandel’s conniving scheme is to include “patriotism and national community” in Leftist populism. “Free trade agreements and immigration are the most potent flashpoints of populist fury,” he observes. To fight the “ugly, intolerant expression . . . hatred of immigrants, a strident nationalism that vilifies Muslims,” Leftists must use a language that gives whites a sense of community “in a global age.” They should not automatically condemn patriotism, but softly employ a “public discourse” in which whites are made to view their national identities within the context of a politics that “aspires to a cosmopolitan ethic of universal human concern.”

He calls upon the Western world to “reimagine the terms of democratic discourse” by speaking of liberal values beyond the efficiency of markets, using “moral and spiritual convictions” – with the proviso, however, that such discourse avoids “the danger that the majority may impose its values on the minority.” Read: manipulate whites into never thinking in terms of their majority rights and interests, but only in terms of the interests of immigrant “minorities” and blacks.

“How is it possible to discuss the meaning of work and its role in a good life without debating competing conceptions of the good life?” he asks in grandiloquent Aristotelian terms. In truth, this is a typical academic misuse of Western moral concepts to manipulate well-meaning white students into believing that the Western intellectual tradition requires all white nations to be diversified. Never mind Aristotle’s view of the good life, which was ethnocentric to its core; liberal values only require the recognition of the equal rights of historical minorities already inside a nation. The claim that liberalism requires racial diversification is a result of the infiltration of liberalism by conniving cultural Marxists.

When Sandel says to his students that he wants to “disentangle the intolerant aspects of [white] populist protest from legitimate grievances,” he is warning them that if they dare to believe in pro-European populism, he will identify them as “intolerant” promoters of a “vengeful nationalism,” a view that will not be tolerated in academia and will result in failure at a university in which the median grade is otherwise an easy A-. This is what the new discourse of Leftist populism is about: violation of the civil rights of critics of diversity and manipulation of students’ minds. It is what makes it new from the populism of the pre-1980s, which was actually sincerely nationalist, rather than treacherous and intolerant of intellectual diversity.

This article was reproduced from the Council of European Canadians Website.


  1. Ovidiu
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    He is not offering much of a strategy but he realizes that the Left is losing the debate because it does not really engage with the nationalist-populist talking points and instead the Left relies on ignoring them and on ‘avoidance’….And ‘suppression’ we would say…but that Sandel won’t say, the very problem he tries to solve now has appeared because precisely suppression and marginalization are failing and there is no ‘plan B’.

    The good news is that Sandel, “world’s most relevant living philosopher”, has no concrete ideas and strategies to offer, just this vague observation that the nationalist-populist ideas and discourses run in parallel with the liberal-cosmopolitan zeitgeist and thus they run unopposed, unchecked by a counter-discourse. His article and observations are more a confession that the quarantine has failed.

  2. Thorsted
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    I came across a quote by him; “would you kill 1.person if it could save 5.peoples lives?” -or put in another way; “would you destroy the west if it could save the 3.rd world”. To destroy the west is an act of ethics. The communists had the same kind of “ethics”.

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      The faces & phenotypes of pathological altruism are proliferating in number, with self-deception increasingly found to be in the mix. A new research paper by Bo Winegard et al (“Low-status groups as a domain of liberal bias”) finds that “Liberals are prone to bias about relatively low-status groups (e.g. Blacks, women), and specifically are biased against information that portrays a high-status group more favorably than a lower status group.” A most stunning paragraph from the paper:

      A growing body of work suggests that in domains relevant to disadvantaged or low-status groups, Liberals are biased whereas Conservatives are relatively even-handed. For a few examples, previous work has found that Liberals were more willing to sacrifice a White man’s life than a Black man’s life to save 100 others, whereas race had no influence on Conservatives’ judgments (Uhlmann, Pizarro, Tannenbaum, & Ditto, 2009). And, whereas both Liberals and Conservatives generally have pro-Black bias, this bias is larger for Liberals (Axt, Ebersole, & Nosek; 2016). Similarly, whereas Liberals were far more inclined to amplify the successes of traditionally disadvantaged groups (i.e., Blacks, women) than traditionally advantaged groups (i.e., Whites, men), Conservatives treated the successes of both groups more similarly (Kteily et al., 2019). This all suggests that Liberals are likely biased toward treating low-status groups better than high-status groups, whereas Conservatives might treat them similarly.

  3. The real John Smith
    Posted March 27, 2019 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    Quite honestly this is the first time I have ever heard of this (((Mr Sanders))), and I consider myself reasonably informed.

    Outside of the zero-profit, media mouth-pieces plugging him does he even exist?

    • Minsc
      Posted March 27, 2019 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      Word. My own rule is that, whenever I encounter someone I’ve never heard of, in a field I’m interested in, being described as the most famous/important/provocative/innovative man in his field, it is pretty safe to skip anything he has written. Going by this article, my rule is in no need of adjustments.

  4. Jay
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Because politics is the only means to achieve self-interests, and lasting (real) political power only derives from mutually-beneficial racial-relationships over generations, Sandel’s proposition to analyze and fund white nationalism into non-existence is a fools errand.

    He simply doesn’t possess the resources to attract Whites away from it, and if he did he would not give them because, in the end, this is all about Jewish possession of those resources (land, money, armies, etc).

    Assuming for a second that Sandel does not know that he has already lost any game played within the realm of democratic institutions (which I’m sure that he and most Jews do, as indicated by their pejorative use of the democratic concept of populism), he is merely attempting to keep the wheels from falling completely off for as long as possible. An effort that will generally make them fall off faster and with more force.

    In short, don’t worry about Sandel. His racial hypocrisy is there for the world to see and we should be glad is is still on display for them to see it.

    Harvard students are generally bright people and so anything short of full intellectual honesty on the part of Sandel, which he will be incapable of over this issue, with have the inverse effect that he desires for at least some students.

    No one likes David Frum nor any of the other Neocons. He’s a morally and intellectually repulsive Jewish supremacist and he’s always physically resembled a monkey. His hate of us is our blessing.

    The Neocons, in general, look like Jewish supremacists to the public because they are continuously placed into privileged media positions in spite of there being a total lack of a voter base that empathizes with the sum of their positions.

  5. Jay
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Keep in mind that Jewish eschatology dictates and “end-time” war between the West and Islam, which is meant to destroy both completely and leave Israel as the only remaining world power and the Jews as the only people left alive.

    Community social destabilization toward that end is why the Jews push immigration. This is Sandel’s subtext.

    See here. Read it all, but the good part starts a couple of paragraphs down:

    Zohar Shemot 32A

  6. Posted April 22, 2019 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    other race. Survey respondents may report . multiple races. What is ethnicity? Ethnicity determines whe ther a person is of Hispanic origin or not. For this reason, ethnicity is broken out in two categories, Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics may report as any race.

  7. Alexandra O.
    Posted November 22, 2019 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    This is a stunning essay and so full of new clues to the heart of Leftist Socialism in this country and worldwide. I found something of clarification of their views in every paragraph, and could comment endlessly, but I have only two points to make: First, it is obvious from Sandel’s writings (or verbal quotations?) that Socialism’s intent indeed is to destroy the West — and thus, ‘white supremacy’ in its larger meaning — in order to “Save the Third-World”. This is mind-boggling when seen in black and white print. This goal cannot be denied, in my opinion, and is the core of Leftist thinking that we must observe carefully and derail, at all costs, by bringing it to the surface for public observation, which of course, is exactly what CC does right along.

    Secondly, as “second-status” people, white women in the West are extremely vulnerable, and the liberals don’t care a whit for them, though WE must do so, or we have no future growth. We need to establish our own welfare system for our own children born out of wedlock and to help their often off-track mother regain a prosperous lifestyle. Before we can establish a homeland, we have to build an ‘underground railroad’ for ourselves.

  8. Alexandra O
    Posted March 12, 2020 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    This is my second reading of this post, and it deserves a further comment. Reading Sandel, ‘the most ominous threat to “Liberal democratic values” are whites who wish to limit immigration and who have pride in their cultural ancestry.’ Well, that would be me, buster. It certainly makes me double down on my allegiance to White Nationalism all the more, and vow to become more active, though I am quite beyond the age to take to the streets with raised fists. Truly, in my case, the pen must be mightier than the sword, as must be the checkbook. Hint to all. Get a side gig to finance your ideals.

    Sandel also thankfully gives us the gist of the new Socialist push, paraphrased here: Whites should be made to view their patriotism and national ‘identity’ within the context of the ethic of ‘universal human concern’ — a euphemism for the tired, old multiculturalism hoorah. Yet again, another clear-cut identity of our enemy’s plans.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace