Shed No Tears for Richard Lugar

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, May 11, 2012

The media loved him for all the wrong reasons.

The great and the good are mourning the primary-elections defeat of Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, lamenting the loss of one of the last “reasonable,” “sensible,” and of course, “serious” Republicans in the eyes of the national media. Why did the media love him? While Sen. Lugar was specifically targeted by conservative groups, his voting record was not especially Left-leaning. He was said to have a good relationship with Barack Obama but this was exaggerated; he usually cast a reliable vote against the President’s agenda.

Instead, the media’s love and his constituents’ scorn were driven by his “internationalist” foreign policy and his support for illegal immigrant amnesty. In both cases, Sen. Lugar did his best to follow the approved liberal guidelines, support establishment consensus, and dampen populist impulses by whites. His entire career was a tight-rope act: seek the love of the Washington establishment while doing just enough to win reelection in a generally conservative state. In the end, the increasing radicalization of conservatives made it impossible for him to maintain that balance.

Sen. Lugar sought to forge a reputation as a promoter of American post-war internationalist ambitions that have been a disaster for whites. The collapse of the European empires and the competition with Communism for the loyalty of the Third World forced Americans to abandon traditional racial policies in favor of living up to egalitarian rhetoric. Successive administrations sacrificed the real interests of the country to the public-relations goals of winning the favor of the Third World and liberal-minded global elites. The interests of the European-Americans who built and sustained the country were pushed aside. Even after the end of the Cold War, winning goodwill was seen as more important than serving (white) American interests.

Likewise, as glowing tributes published after his defeat make clear, Senator Lugar was one of the most important figures in the fight to destroy white South Africa. The Reagan Administration valued South Africa as an anti-communist ally but opposed apartheid, and wanted to pursue a strategy of “constructive engagement” that avoided sanctions. After President Reagan’s massive re-election victory in November 1984, the defeated Democrats saw increasing media attention on apartheid as an opportunity to attack “constructive engagement.”

The main ethnic interest group that opposed apartheid was Randall Robinson’s TransAfrica. Capitalizing on increasing unrest in South Africa, the group began a campaign of civil disobedience. This was the start of a “Free South Africa” movement that gained strength as celebrities and politicians joined the protests, asking to be arrested. The media responded with adoring coverage.

It was because of this public attention that the first Republicans began to abandon Ronald Reagan. Senator Lugar, already chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote a letter on November 30, 1984, to the President arguing for a comprehensive review of policy towards South Africa. A few days later, a group of 35 Republican congressmen in a group called the Conservative Opportunity Society wrote to the South African ambassador threatening sanctions unless civil rights legislation were passed immediately. The stated purpose of the group’s action was to prove that conservatism wasn’t racist.

While some conservatives such as Howard Phillips and Pat Buchanan held firm, Senator Lugar and other Republicans saw an opportunity to get the Republican Party “in front” of an issue. Sen. Lugar, especially, thought he saw an opportunity to blunt anti-apartheid sentiment and prevent it from being used against the Republicans, while buttressing his own credentials as a statesman.

After a long pressure campaign, the Reagan Administration imposed limited sanctions by executive order in September 1985, and hoped the issue would go away. The results were predictable. Democrats in the House introduced a much stricter sanctions bill than Mr. Lugar and other Republicans even wanted. Having conceded to all the premises of the opposition, the senator and other anti-apartheid Republicans had no grounds on which to oppose it.

Meanwhile, the media campaign continued as unrest in South Africa increased. In 1986, there were 1,100 articles about South Africa in the New York Times, or an average of 2.3 a day. House Republicans also made a critical error in June 1986 by allowing an extreme sanctions bill proposed by black Democratic Congressman William Gray to pass, under the theory that Reagan would veto it and it would not be overridden. Even Senator Lugar did not want to go as far.

Mr. Lugar and other Republicans didn’t want to punish companies that did business with South Africa, but they were trapped by their own rhetoric and didn’t want to be called racist. Senate Republicans eyeing re-election were also worried about the black vote, thinking that “a few percentage points vote by blacks could make the difference.” [Edward Walsh, “Shultz Tries to Head Off Sanctions; Reagan Likely to Speak on South African Issue Next Week,” Washington Post. July 17, 1986, p. A32.] In the face of increasing pressure, the GOP crumbled. On July 3, Vice President George H.W. Bush declared that “apartheid must end.”

Now committed to ending apartheid, Senator Lugar and other worried Republicans decided that everything depended on whether President Reagan’s actions were seen as sufficiently anti-apartheid. Meanwhile the Administration was still trying to pursue trade agreements with the very regime it was condemning publicly. Sen. Lugar, having built himself up as a dedicated anti-racist, had to confront his own President and push for sanctions that he, himself, thought were too severe.

Senator Lugar introduced his own sanctions bill in the Senate in summer 1986 and it passed the Senate by 84 to 14 votes. The senator then heavily lobbied the President to sign it. On August 24, he wrote an editorial in the New York Times, directly challenging President to sign the bill. Reagan called Mr. Lugar’s bluff and vetoed the bill. Incredibly, the Republican-controlled Senate overrode the veto and passed Mr. Lugar’s bill, imposing strict sanctions on South Africa.

Of course, the sanctions did nothing to win blacks to the Republican Party, though they did help establish Mr. Lugar as a foreign policy leader even willing to take on the President. However, Mr. Lugar was not so much led, but propelled by events. Having conceded the South African argument to the Left, he was forced to hurt his own party and President in order to avoid media criticism. Once the premise that apartheid was irredeemably evil was granted, Senator Lugar had to move further than he wanted in order to maintain his respectable reputation. He won establishment praise, but got few black voters.

Senator Lugar’s “internationalism” led him to indifference towards once-treasured concepts of sovereignty. He championed the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would create an international taxing authority, remove American control over certain resources, and give an authority composed of over 150 other nations veto power over American naval actions. However, Mr. Lugar justified this on the grounds that since many countries saw the United States as an arrogant bully, it was important to “demonstrate that we believe in international cooperation.”

Immigration is a key area in which Mr. Lugar worked hard against white interests. He co-sponsored the so-called DREAM Act and voted for the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill—winning media praise as a “reasonable” Republican. He also has received the support of Hispanic organizations for standing up for “our people” rather than his own people. Unfortunately for the senator, conservatives were willing to mobilize on immigration to defeat him. Immigration control groups such as ALIPAC (Americans for Legal Immigration) endorsed his opponent and he faced attack ads on the issue.

White advocates should have no illusions—we had nothing to do with Richard Lugar’s defeat. The money and grassroots organization was driven by multimillion dollar conservative foundations that were looking for a more explicitly partisan senator from Indiana who would challenge the President aggressively. Nor did immigration drive the opposition to Mr. Lugar; many of the conservative organizations that started the campaign would be thrilled with open borders and cheap labor. Senator Lugar lost because of a widely perceived belief that he was “out of touch” with the people of his state.

What this suggests is that the conservative base is looking for more openly confrontational candidates. While the conservative establishment has mixed feelings about illegal immigration, a stance against it promotes the anti-Washington image that insurgent candidates on the Right need. Senator Lugar’s 35-year reputation as a foreign policy expert did him no good at all in this election.

Indiana is 90 percent white, and the Republican base is even whiter. These voters are no longer interested in establishment credentials. They think a good relationship with President Obama is an outright liability and are suspicious of any candidate the media love. At its base, the Republican Party is becoming more implicitly white, more uncompromising, and more focused on immigration.

The lesson of Mr. Lugar is that passing sanctions on South Africa and promoting foreign treaties established him as a beloved and respected figure by the anti-white media, but this didn’t necessarily translate into support at home. Immigration, on the other hand, was something that mattered directly to Indiana primary voters. The conservative base is also looking for more openly partisan and confrontational candidates. Violating the media’s narrative may not win a politician the reputation as a “serious” person, but it is rewarded with victory. Championing issues like immigration also builds the outsider image needed to win in the contemporary GOP.

White advocates should not have any false hopes about the Republican Party. It is dominated by corporate interests that are utterly indifferent to the dispossession of whites. Nonetheless, the party is “hardening” around a white base increasingly dissatisfied with the direction of the country. This presents opportunities for white advocates willing to be part of the political process, if only to remove politicians like Richard Lugar, who lost precisely because he was respectable. This suggests that conservatives might be looking for new alternatives. They are not ready for white advocacy, but they are ready to move beyond what they’ve had for the last 35 years, and that is a start.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Gregory Hood
Mr. Hood has been active in conservative youth movements in the US.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Johnny Reb

    Lugar is the kind of man who wants to “do right.”

    So he uses modern concepts of “right-think” (mostly based on moral relativism, gibbs me, diversity and multicult) and ends up “doing right” for non-whites at the expense of whites.

    I actually don’t blame an old-timer like Lugar for getting fooled once or twice by this.  But he’s been fooled so often, one has to conclude that he’s just a fool.

    Good riddance.  The next guy probably won’t be any better for white racialism . . . but he’s probably not going to be worse, either.

    • ed91

      you nailed it Reb!          

      add to that lugar was arrogant enough to believe he knew better than his people back in Indiana……………  but you’re right, the left played him for a sucker, and he was.

      just another wanna-be nice guy that got used…..I’m so tired of them– their negligence eventually leads to evil……. and we’re staring it right in the face now.

  • The NYT-CFR types were upset at Lugar’s involuntary retirement.  It is assumed the Republicans will take back the Senate this year, which means the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will once again be run by a Republican.  Between the retirement of Jesse Helms in 2002, (he ran the SFRC from the red wave of 1994 until then), and the blue wave of 2006, Lugar ran the SFRC.  If he would have won re-election this year, and again, assuming the Republican takeover, he would have run the SFRC once again.  Now, whichever Republican Senator runs the SFRC won’t be an incorrigible globalist like Lugar, even if he’s not one of us.  If it’s based on seniority, it will be Jim Inhofe (OK), if not, then Jim DeMint (SC) might get that gavel.

  • The__Bobster

    Lugar is a big-spending, illegal alien-loving old crock. Good riddance.

    Lugar Defeated by Tea Party Candidate
    By Allan Wall on May 10, 2012 at 8:52pm

    Richard Lugar, longtime senator from Indiana, was defeated in the Republican primary by Richard Mourdock, supported by Tea Party elements.

    Quote:Roy Beck of Numbers USA had a good analysis of the Lugar defeat:

    No matter which Party wins in November, the Indiana Senate seat now held by Richard Lugar should produce far better immigration actions in the future. Democrat primary winner Joe Donnelly has a B+ Career immigration grade in the U.S. House. And the GOP primary victor, Richard Mourdock, filled out the NumbersUSA survey to earn the title of TRUE REFORMER, supporting all 12 of our immigration stances. In addition, the Libertarian primary victor, Andrew Horning, filled out our survey and looks almost as good as Donnelly on immigration…

    Finally, the workers of Indiana — and the country — will have a U.S. Senator from Indiana who cares about their interests when it comes to immigration…

    Like many Senators who serve for many terms, Sen. Lugar was vulnerable to charges that he no longer had a good feel for the needs of his state’s voters. ..Indiana Secretary of State Mourdock challenged Lugar in part because of his constant leadership in pushing for amnesties for illegal aliens who have illegally stolen U.S. jobs….Sen. Lugar never met an amnesty he didn’t like, voting for amnesties 15 times. ..We rated Sen. Lugar on 85 immigration actions since 1989. When each action was weighted according to the numerical impact, we found that he acted 81% of the time in favor of foreign workers and dependents over the interests of U.S. workers and dependents.That earned him a D-minus over his career, making him the worst Republican in the Senate (Sen. John McCain of Arizona is runner-up)…

    Defeated-Sen. Lugar is worst immigration Republican in Senate –both GOP & Dem Indiana primary victors MUCH better Roy Beck, Numbers USA, May 8th, 2012

    • Oil Can Harry

      I knew Lugar was bad on immigrataion but- (gasp!) worse than John McCain?!?

      I didn’t think that was possible!

      •  John McCain campaigned heavily for Lugar in Indiana in the last few weeks before voting. 

        The same John McCain who lost Indiana to Obama in 2008.  And Indiana is no swing state!

        A lot of help that was.

  • ShoutsAtTV

    Cry for Lugar? Laugh like a hyena maybe. Hoist a shot and wave goodbye to a RINO, you betcha.

  • Can we get an edit? “WHEN WAS THIS”–I assume this is an editor’s note suggesting a date should go in there.

  • Hirschibold

    Bachmann-Nugent sounds like a winning President/VP ticket. The media pile-on against Michelle was so vehement and relentless that it would be worth it just to watch the MSNBC-CNN talking heads choke on their words as they were forced to announce her victory. And before anyone flames me for boosting Michelle Bachmann, yes I am aware she has some deficiencies.

    • Bachmann for president? Are you serious? She turned tail and ran after finishing sixth and last in the Iowa caucuses. She couldn’t be elected dogcatcher in Duluth, MN. She’d never even be competitive in states like New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington, places where conservatives don’t have a fu****g prayer of winning in a presidential election.

      Bachmann is toast for 2016. She had her drink, and now it’s closing time at the bar. No refills.

      • Hirschibold

         See response to “Bobster” below.

    • The__Bobster

      Are you also aware that she’s no longer in the race?

      • Hirschibold

         It was a dream hypothetical. Was Nugent ever in the running?

        • Lou

           Perfect response… Love your style …

        • The__Bobster

          Not since the pants-crapping story came out.

          BTW, no one “runs” for VP.

          • Hirschibold

            Bob, I get it. You really tell it like it is.

  • As a Hoosier, Not sure that Lugar’s opponant is really a REAL tea party candidate. Being endorsed by Parlin and the insider GOP financed Tea Party Express, does not a Constitutional Conservative make.
    Also, no mention here of the ever powerfull National Rifle Association’s giving Lugar an “F” on 2nd ammendment issues. That in itself is usually enough. The writer here is right on many counts, but they are things most voters here have forgotten. But to get an “F” from the NRA? In this case, the F stands for “F#%ked”.

  • xxxtonygunsxxx


  • xxxtonygunsxxx

    comment approved?

  • xxxtonygunsxxx

    comment approved? wth

  • Hoosiers generally were less concerned with Lugar’s voting record, Washington influence and philosophy than with his tenure. At 80 years old and with 36 years in the Senate, Republicans simply thought he well past retirement. That may not be rational logic, but that was a common reason to oppose him.

    There was also a residency questions. Indiana’s Attorney General was recently forced to leave office due to residency issues. Hoosiers were sensitive, viewing Lugar as a Senator who lived in Washington and maintained a farm in Indiana for mere legal reasons.

    Conservatives were frustrated with his voting record. He was the quintessential RHINO in the eyes of Tea Party types. 

    Bumping Lugar from the November ballot may have saved one GOP seat in the Senate. 

    • Sounds like you’re a Hoosier; so am I. You pretty much nailed the reasons Lugar was booted out: Too old; there too long; too cozy with too many Democrats.

      Anyone who would like to read a little more about Sen. Lugar’s ouster can go to my website at and peruse the story at the top of the home page.

      •  I’m adding your website to my blogroll.  BTW, as a St. Louisan, I have to snicker every time “hoosier” is used in these comments.  I know the difference in meaning, but after all, I was raised in an environment were “hoosier” meant something very different.

  • Strider73

    Watch out, Hoosiers. Lugar might decide to emulate Joe Lieberman (D-Tel Aviv) and run as an independent after losing his primary. Then the Democrats will throw their own nominee under the bus and flock to him the way neocon Republicans did to Lieberman. Two years ago our RINO governor, Charlie Crist, went independent before Marco Rubio could crush him in the primary. Then Obama, using Bill Clinton as his message boy, tried to bribe the black Democrat candidate into dropping out and endorsing Crist.

    There are three possible ways to bring professional political hacks like Lugar to heel:

    1. Impose strict term limits (12 years in Congress is enough for anyone).
    2. Repeal the 17th Amendment and return control of the Senate to the state legislatures.
    3. Do both.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

       Indiana has a “sore loser” law that prevents Lugar from running as an independent after losing a primary.

      Way to go Hoosiers!!


    • anarchyst

      We also need to prohibit “dual-citizenship” for ALL federal government workers AND lobbyists . . .
      Check out “who’s who” in our government . . . you will not like what you see . . . the influence that certain “foreign” governments and institutions have on our government and foreign policy will result in the demise of the USA . . .

    • Carney3

      In response to term limits, I have two words: Jesse Helms.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    That 22 point margin sends a very loud message to other GOPe -ers and should get the attention of other RINOS like McCain, Lindsey Graham and Hatch.  This victory is just scratching the surface, there needs to be a lot more housecleaning of republicans who are really democrats.

    It’s time to get rid of John Boehner next (the Weeper of the House), and send him crying home..

    House Speaker John Boehner will face a challenge in the GOP primary next year, Fox News has confirmed…26-year-old David Lewis, who does not live in Boehner’s Ohio district, has filed with the Butler County Board of Elections (in Boehner’s home county) to challenge the speaker on March 6….Lewis is a Tea Party loyalist who lives in Clermont County on the east side of Cincinnati.

    President Obama lamented Lugar’s defeat: “I found during my time in the Senate that he was often willing to reach across the aisle and get things done.

    “Get things done” = help Democrat socialists. 

    Way to go Hoosiers!!


  • thank you very much,it’s a very good Article!

  • geraldmartin

    I’m getting sick and tired of hearing how the base of the Republican party is getting more “implicitly white, more uncompromising and more focused on immigration.” If I try telling Republicans they’re “implicitly white” they will shout about how much they love Herman Cain, and Allen West and Clarence Thomas. They will say they’re NOT “implicitly white” (many will deny race even exists, just like their liberal enemies) and the reason they’re Republicans is because they want small government and oppose socialism and race has nothing to do with that. They will say they’re Republicans because they love the flag (which means most would love to bomb Iran). “And that has NOTHING  to do with race, Mr. Bigot!”

    “More uncompromising and more focused on immigration?” Oh…so that’s how we got Romney, who can’t even decide what his position is on immigration (except he wants to staple a green card on every foreigner’s Ph.D…or maybe even their bachelors and masters). Republicans are so uncompromising and focused on immigration they allowed the debates to avoid the issue entirely or get by with one or two softball questions which the candidates were allowed to stumble and mumble their way through while they threw sand in our eyes. Republicans are so uncompromising and focused on immigration they allowed the leading Republican opponent of illegal immigration (who was also moving our way on the legal kind) – Tom Tancredo – to be marginalized and virtually run out of the party…not unlike what was done to a previous truth-teller about immigration, Pat Buchanan.

    I’m glad to hear Republicans – though of course they’re not ready for “white advocacy” – are ready to move beyond “what they’ve had for the past 35 years.”

    But if that means more “implicit whiteness” of the kind I’ve described above, the only kind of “start” that really means is a start on the road to nowhere.

    • JackKrak

      Fair points you make there

    • The fact that disgruntled white Republicans nearly made Herman Cain the frontrunner, until he was derailed by his own stupidity (not knowing that what he was doing was wrong, while paying out hush money at the same time), shows that they were trying to “out-Bantu” the Democrats. What were they thinking? Herman Cain was nothing more than a useful idiot, who then devolved into an idiot.

      Lugar never really got over that tag they hung on him as “Richard Nixon’s favorite mayor”. He was pro-gun control as well. He was one of those “moderate Republicans” the media love.

    • Major

      “that really means is a start on the road to nowhere…”

      On the contrary….they’ve been putting us on the road to perdition for over 40 years.

      Time to reverse the blatant discrimination as well as the blame.

  • Senator Lugar was also a reliable ‘ally’ of Israel. 

    This matters profoundly to Establishment Washington.

    • The__Bobster

      Except for Ron Paul, what congresscritter isn’t?

    •  Mourdock is also wrong in that regard, so we didn’t get a choice on that issue.  Therefore, we can’t analyze Lugar’s involuntary retirement using those particular issues.

      • Carney3

        Mourdock is also CORRECT in that regard.  In Israel’s struggle with the hordes of low IQ, fanatically Muslim, stupidly socialist, primitive savages that surround it, the only sane and decent stance is to be totally behind Israel in every particular.  The end.

        • anarchyst

          I have no problem with individual citizens supporting Israel, but I have a problem with MY country unconditionally supporting ANY other country with MY tax dollars.  Support for ANY other country should be based on what is good for the USA, NOT unconditional support as what Israel receives today.
          One cannot blame Israel for promoting “what is good for Israel”; however, there are too many influential politicians and policy wonks in MY government with “dual-citizenship” status who seem to tilt towards Israel without regard to what is good for MY country.
          I urge Amren readers to look up details of the USS Liberty, the 1967 “six-day war”, the Lavon affair and the Goldstone report.  You will find that MY country was “used” in the above “actions”, some with unnecessary loss of American lives . . . of course, Israel must do “what is good for Israel”, but not at MY country’s expense . . .
          That being said, I have no use for muslims either . . .
          Thomas Jefferson had it right when he proposed “trade with all countries, political alliances with NONE”

          • Pandemonium

            Or as G. Washington said in his farewell address… “avoid entangling alliances”.

        •  If you want to be pro-Israel because you’re pro-white, fine.  I am.  But if you’re going to be that, you have to be fair, and also be pro-Iceland, pro-Luxembourg, pro-Slovenia.  And if one is not as much pro-Iceland, Luxembourg and Slovenia as you are pro-Israel, then I have no choice bu to conclude that one’s pro-Israel stance has another agenda behind it.

          Let’s be honest with ourselves.  Almost every American who “stands with Israel” isn’t doing so for racial reasons.  It’s either tribal, sucking up to the tribe, or fundagelical Christianity.  Not racial solidarity.

          As for me, the Israel thing isn’t either a prerequisite or deal breaker for white nationalism (or whatever we’re supposed to call it, Mr. Derbyshire).  I can take it or leave it, and not much care either way.

          • Carney3

            I’m pro Israel because I’m pro-white. Am I annoyed by anti-white PC nonsense believed in and acted on by Jews? Yes, just as I am by the same thing from Swedes. You should much care either way, because the weapon being used against Israel (white guilt, demonization of it being an “apartheid state”, Third World envy, Islam against the West) is the same weapons being used against us.

    • Carney3

      Being an ally of Israel instead of the primitive Muslim savage is a good thing, idiot.

  • ed91

     you say tomato

    I say to’mato

    what’s the frickin’ difference, evil is evil, no matter how it is disguised……
    go pick a fight in the ghetto

  • slobotnavich

    Lugar was a “moderate” Republican, meaning a RINO.  This means the MSM held him up as an example of how to be a barely tolerable, if morally defective, conservative.

    He’s at one with the likes of Bob Dole (Dolt?), John (Crash) McCain, and Nelson Rockefeller, who never actually earned a dime in his life.

  • Too bad the Indiana voters had to elect the open-borders piece of garbage Dan Coats.  There were some great alternatives who were tough on illegal AND legal immigration, in particular guest worker visa programs (though I think technically that’s not considered immigration). As the author states, however, these elections are heavily influenced by the corporatists. I am thoroughly disgusted much of the time I turn on Fox News, hearing the love fest between the braindead anchors and Wall Street/cheap labor talking heads.

  • Major

    Lugar the luggee, will never be prosecuted here…he’s only was responsible for the mass killing of African born whites. Nothing to see here…move along.

  • He was only the worst since Obama left the senate. Senator “Present.”

  • Carney3

    All this is well said and basically correct.  Lugar’s actions on South Africa etc. were especially reprehensible.

    However, Lugar is what a Senator is supposed to be – an experienced older man, not given to passions or excess, a gentleman, etc.   There is something to regret in that vanishing and the Senate being just another House.

    Also I appreciated his stance on a key issue – the Open Fuel Standards Act.  It’s a MUST pass piece of legislation that would break the main source of non-Western financial and strategic power:  OPEC.   Mourdock, for all his superiority in many ways, will most likely mindlessly oppose the OFSA as a “mandate” for “green” tech, and stubbornly devoutly believe in the face of crushing evidence that all we need to is more domestic drill baby drill, dooming us to remaining helpless victims of OPEC, funding our own Islamist, socialist, and anti-white enemies.

    •  Better yet, a Mourdock will be far more likely than a Lugar to open up our upper Midwest and upper Intermountain West to oil extraction, which would mean we could tell Al Qaeda Hydrocarbons Inc. (aka OPEC) to stick it.

      • Carney3

        Feel good fantasy. In the real world, we have less than 2% of all world oil reserves counting Arctic and offshore. Shale oil (the source of most misleading “we have all the oil we need” happy talk) is economically and strategically irrelevant because it is so much more difficult and expensive to extract the oil from the shale than to just drill up ordinary oil – that’s why it’s always been a failure despite Jimmy Carter’s effort to massively subsidize it. There’s no way out of the oil trap but to break free from oil.

        Fortunately while we are oil poor we do have lots of natural gas, coal, and biomass, which can make alcohol fuel.

  • Carney3

    You condemn someone for being pro police state, anti-gun, and no friend of America, yet have a Soviet war memorial as a picture?

  • Anon12

    Happy Mother’s Day to all you good White mothers out there.

  • Piss on Lugar
    Let a Liberal Democrat win if need be
    then, they can REALLY PISS OFF the Do-Nothing Majority
    Coalesce the ANGER


  • Pandemonium

    Agree. And we also need to start openly asking that question. Is this or that policy good for the smallest racial minority in the world??? Is it good for the White community??

  • Carney3

    It makes rational sense for Liberty survivors and their loved ones to obsess about it. Anyone else who does is an anti-Semitic nut job. There’s no rational reason for Israel to have attacked the Liberty, a ship of its main ally and sponsor. Friendly fire happens all the time; thousands of Americans died of it in Normandy alone. Even if it WAS deliberate, Israel apologized and has compensated the families. In the big picture it’s irrelevant.

    • Anon12

       Friendly fire? What a joke!  Apologized? What another joke?  Compensation?  You just cannot stop with your jokes, can you?  You aren’t dealing with a bunch of brainwashed fools any longer.  People all over the world are waking up from their slumber.

      Obviously you are a semite (from all your posts here) and your name calling  of anyone who disagrees with you as an anti-semitic nutjob, proves it.

      As for this statement of yours,

      “Even if it WAS deliberate, Israel apologized and has compensated the families. In the big picture it’s irrelevant.”

      How dare you!  That makes me sick to my stomach. YOU are the one that is irrelevant and so are your opinions from now on.

      • Carney3

        I have zero Jewish ancestry, you paranoid obsessive crazy.

        In the big picture it IS irrelevant. Just 11 years before the Liberty incident you lovingly dwell on as an excuse to indulge your anti-Jewish mania, the USA nearly went to war with not only Israel but also France and the UK over the Suez incident. That was a serious problem in our relations with those three countries, but in the big picture over the course of time we are still friends with all three. Going on and on and on and on and on about Suez is missing the point, missing the forest for the trees, just as doing so about the Liberty is.

        I don’t think anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-Semitic nut job. But anti-Semitic nut jobs like you are anti-Semitic nut jobs, certainly.

      • Carney3

        What do you mean how dare I? I pointed out facts – they apologized and paid compensation – millions of dollars, both to the families and the US government (for battle damage). What else can they possibly do other than apologize and provide compensation? What do you want them to do, commit mass suicide in remorse? Yes, that it’s it isn’t it? It’s the fact that the Jews and Israel have the temerity to exist that is your REAL problem, and any pretext or issue you bring up is a mere mask for that. Just come out and say so, have the courage.

  • Carney3

    Look up who wrote “The American Dilemma”. Swedes hectored and lectured us constantly about our racial problems during the “civil rights” era, and because of their pleasant and attractive societies had a lot of credibility and impact in pushing bad policies on us. To this day they have been devoutly anti-white, in contrast to the other Nordic countries that are waking up.

  • Carney3

    Plenty of god-awful Irish politicians too, but nobody blames the Irish for the problems of the white world. Jews are indeed disproportionately influential and leftist, but there are basically none in Sweden and yet the Swedes are just as suicidal as the rest of us. Blaming the Jews is inaccurate, distracting, and diverts our attention and energies into a path that is not merely wasteful of limited time and resources, but actively counter-productive since pro-whites and race realists already have to labor under suspicion that we’re anti-Semitic kooks as it is. Actually being such kooks means ZERO chance of ever convincing enough fellow whites to wake up.

    • mikejones91

      Finally, someone with the balls to say it. Well done.

  • Carney3

    You’re the one in the box. A tiny, cramped, lightless box you have crawled into and welded shut from the inside to seal yourself off from facts and logic. I care deeply about white identity, white interests, white civilization, and white survival, and every physical or online place I go to try to connect with others like me is swarmed with anti-Semitic zombies, yammering about IRRELEVANCIES like Israel and blaming Jews INSTEAD OF OURSELVES for our SELF-IMPOSED problems.

  • Carney3

    Oh, saw your response on Disqus dot com instead of the AR site, so I didn’t see its context. Thought it was in the context of our dispute about anti-Semitism distracting and perverting the pro-white movement. Instead you were responding to term limits. I’d say in response then that any of the leftists you named was basically fungible with the others – one liberal more or less makes little difference; he’d be replaced by another just like him. But Jesse Helms was a giant, and made a huge difference all alone. A generic Republican, even a generic conservative, from North Carolina, which is the best we could have hoped for with term limits, would not have had nearly the impact that Helms had.