What Laura Wood Thinks

Two sensible questions may come to mind as you contemplate wading through the following text: Who is Laura Wood and why should I care what she thinks?

Beyond the blog posts linked below I don't know who Laura Wood is or why she thinks what she thinks. I understand that Wood and Lawrence Auster regard each other highly. I suspect that, as with Auster, Wood's readers include more than a few Whites who are more or less displeased with the anti-White regime but have yet to understand it in such terms.

Like Auster, Wood is a social critic who strikes a faux-White pose. Like Auster, Wood hosts earnest-sounding, carefully managed discussions of "liberalism". Jews are mentioned in these discussions, but only to ultimately minimize their role and excuse them. The most serious condemnations are directed at Whites.

A few days ago Wood made a series of blog posts along these lines. She began the first post, titled Rejecting the "White Nationalist" Label, by quoting Lawrence Auster:

White nationalists are material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race. I treat race as one very important determining factor in human existence, along with many other factors. And I am not a material reductionist. Material/racial factors can be the controlling factors; for example, if you change a formerly all-white city into a half black city, certain effects will inevitably ensue. At the same time, material/racial factors are not the only factors, especially at the individual level. But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.

Auster regards his most hated enemies as automata controlled by a spontaneous hate for jews and projects his own materialist, racialist, reductionist thinking onto them. He started off by commenting on the "asians in the library" controversy, quickly shifted into a critique of White nationalism, and then broadened the bashing to Whites in general, blaming us for imposing genocidal open borders and diversity on ourselves (his emphasis):

Once a white country through its immigration policy makes itself conspicuously nonwhite, the former, white identity of the country is seen as something wicked and disgusting, and the former white majority is seen as racist, particularly by members of that former majority. The very act of the country becoming conspicuously nonwhite and diverse results in the psychological imperative that everything must conform to the new, diverse identity of the country. If diversity is what we are and is good, then whiteness is bad. Thus any remnant, and any remaining expression, of the former white majority is seen as suspect and threatening. That's one of the ways in which mass nonwhite immigration is the path to national suicide. It turns the white population against itself.

Auster's analysis conveniently overlooks jewish culpability in opening the borders, changing the identity of the country, and making White identity something wicked and disgusting. Auster is aware of this jewish culpability. Roughly two years ago he wrote in response to a correspondent Boris S. in The BNP versus the rulers of the Dead Island:

You write:

"On the other hand, one may claim that Jewish leftists are seeking to harm non-Jews in order to advance an ethnocentric agenda. [This] view is anti-Semitic and false..."

But there's much evidence that it is true. Numerous Jewish spokesman have said, not just in recent times, but in past decades, that America's white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration. To seek to turn the historic non-Jewish white Christian majority of this country into a minority, out of the conviction that that majority is oppressive and malign, is certainly to seek to harm non-Jews.

In his current critique Auster also neglects to mention the jewish origins of the "diversity" template "minorities" use - loudly pathologizing and demonizing the White enemy for being insensitive to non-White interests. Auster attributes this template to "liberalism", and for it he blames Whites alone:

This radically changed national consciousness inaugurates the three character liberal "script" I've often spoken of. The first character in the script is the liberal white, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime. The second character is any white who is seen as non-liberal or merely insufficiently liberal. He represents the principle of evil which must be suppressed. The third character is the nonwhite Other, who is not a moral actor in the script but only a sacred object. His role is to be either "included" by the good, liberal white or "excluded" by the bad, non-liberal white. The moral conflict in the story is not between the whites and the nonwhite, it's between the "good," non-discriminatory white and the "evil," discriminatory white, fighting over how to treat the nonwhite Other.

As is often the case Auster's critique of "liberalism" sheds much light on his own motives and methods. In this case he starts by declaring White nationalists bad because they wish to exclude the jewish Other, and then later in the same conversation reveals that some part of his brain understands this behavior of his is a "script" which "liberal whites" act out.

In a comment at Laura Wood's blog Auster makes the jewish terms of his "liberal white script" objection to White nationalists more plain:

While I never described myself as one, I didn’t mind it when others called me one. But in more recent years I became aware that literally every blogger who identifies as a white nationalist is (a) a material racial reductionist who thinks that race determines everything; and (b) a serious anti-Semite or a fellow traveler with serious anti-Semites.

Setting aside the initial strawman portion, Wood emphatically agrees with Auster about the portion putting jewish interests first:

If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.

When it comes down to choosing, Auster and Wood choose to oppose the rest of us who want a choice.

Like Auster, Wood laboriously selects and publishes only the comments she wishes to appear. After she truncated and mischaracterized my first comment at her blog (see the comments here) we had a brief exchange via email in which she confided that: "the reason why I dropped your comment was that we do not have enough in common". Fair enough. It's also fair then to say that the remarks Wood does publish do have enough in common with her thinking.

Wood continues her moderated discussion in The Problem with White Nationalism, cont., beginning with a lengthy comment from Boris S. (who may very well be the same person Auster responded to on his own blog two years ago):

The essential difference between the so-called "white nationalist" tribalism and the organization of Jews, which the "white nationalists" seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. The "white nationalists," on the other hand, want to impose a totally new tribal organization, invented out of thin air, on a group that has never constituted--that is, never saw itself as--a single nation, people, or tribe. "Whites" are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the "Jewish people."

Furthermore, no matter how much "white nationalists" deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe, itself differentiated according to an internal racial hierarchy. The crippling blow to Western civilization, that may yet turn out to be a deathblow, which has been wrought by Nazism, does not seem to give much pause to the soi-disant "white nationalists" who claim to "defend Western civilization." One would like to know what that oft-invoked "Western civilization" means to such people. Does it refer to the individual freedoms granted by the Western democracies? Does it mean Western music, art, literature? The Western philosophical tradition? The Christian religion? One suspects it is merely a suitably noble-sounding call to arms, perhaps to be replaced by some other catch-phrase when its use has run out. To this, "white nationalists" would protest that, unlike Nazism, their movement does not promote violence and war. This objection cannot be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because the movement seeks to overturn the present political and social order, it is by nature revolutionary, and, like all revolutionary movements, it will one day face the necessity of the use of violence if it seriously hopes to achieve its goals. Second, because Western societies are not "racially homogenous" according to the understanding of the "white nationalists" themselves, their desired order will inevitably create classes of "racial aliens" who would resent their sudden status as outsiders and would have to be dealt with somehow. It is amusing to note that many "white nationalists" deny the revolutionary nature of their movement as they try to claim what they take to be the "prestigious" mantle of "true conservatism" or "reaction."

These are some of the nasty consequences of the "white nationalist" program. It is important to add that the ideology does not withstand theoretical criticism, because many of its claims about human history and human societies are basically incorrect. Racial tribalism as a mode of thought is alien to Western tradition, and has become widespread only in the late 19th century, when it could be based upon Darwinism and its naturalistic (or "zoological") view of man, and when masses of men disoriented by the fall of the feudal order and the havoc of industrial capitalism sought a new identity to give them meaning and a sense of belonging. It is true that the demographic changes now sweeping the Western world are in part made possible by what could be called "anti-racism" or "reverse racism," an essentially revolutionary attitude that denies to those nation-states it sees as "white" any right to defense against "non-white" invaders (and is also responsible for affirmative action). This attitude, which does not rise to the level of ideology (with the possible exception of a few revolutionary socialist groups that have attempted to articulate it), is a diseased reaction to the likewise diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950. But the demographic changes are also made possible by the shrinking of the world due to modern technology, and receive their impetus from technological and economic forces. In other words, what the racialists see as the preserved "racial purity" of Europe until the second half of the 20th century, is not the result of a nonexistent tradition of racial tribalism, but simply the expected absence of rapid change in the pre-industrial era. This brings us to another problem with the "white nationalist" ideology: what today we would call "ethnic mixing" has happened continuously for millennia between peoples who lived within accessible geographic distances. Thus, unless we deny the common origin of mankind (at which point we could no longer claim scientific backing or any connection with Western tradition) we cannot treat "the white race" as an objectively fixed entity.

The only good thing that can be said of "white nationalism" is that it gives comfort to some individuals who, in having been deprived of any adequate outlet for their creative energies and a stable community, have been among the unfortunate victims of modernity. But apart from the theoretical problems and the necessary violence and immorality that would flow from any attempt to implement "white nationalism" in America, the ideology, in its obsession with race and its beside-the-point pursuit of scientific justification, seems to have no answer to the problems any serious political thinker today would have to deal with, including the overwhelming role of technological and economic forces in constraining the freedom of modern man, the prevailing antihumanist ethos of Enlightened or bourgeois utilitarianism which holds human beings to be valuable only insofar as they happen to be "useful" (however this is to be defined, whether by the state or the "free market"), the related contempt for philosophy, religion, and contemplation, or the superficial scientism and "secular humanism" (a sort of cheap tribalism from which "white nationalism" differs only in the scope of the designated tribe) that dominate respectable discourse. Considering either the silence or the incredible shallowness of "white nationalism" on such matters, the movement seems to be rather one more symptom of the pathology.

As with Auster and Wood, Boris' argument is based on a personal conviction that White nationalism is bad for jews. As I tried to point out in the comment Wood truncated, this argument is beside the point. Whites are distinct from jews. White nationalism is premised on what is good for Whites, not what is good for jews. Auster and Wood both dodge this argument by treating jews and Whites as one inseparable "white", and do so even as they distinguish jews for special treatment.

Unlike Auster and Wood Boris doesn't pretend to sympathize with Whites. He doesn't pretend Whites and jews are one inseparable "white". He belittles White attempts to organize politically to debate and pursue our interests, and does so specifically in contrast with jews.

Wood published Boris's boorish comment and followed it with another:

Robert Gray writes:

It's ironic that the Jew-mongers would describe Auster as a "Jewish fifth columnist" when they themselves drive white Americans away from the cause with their incessant talk of Jews and Jewish influence. The typical white nationalist site, in its content, comments, and links, repels whites because we are not utterly obsessed with Jews and have no sympathy with neo-Nazism, Fascism, and Holocaust denial. I've tried to reason with those afflicted with Jew-mania, but reason and logic have no effect. They cannot see the damage they do. Indeed, I don't think they care. For their concern is proving that Jews are evil, rather than securing the interests of white people.

Auster describes himself a jewish fifth columnist, and Gray's demonizing of "jew-mongers" "afflicted with jew-mania" echoes Auster's "liberal white script". It is a blunt attempt to pathologize Whites who identify jewish sources of anti-White hostility. Gray's 17-point position statement, offered as advocacy of ostensibly "white ethnic interests", comprises four points distinguishing and advocating anti-"nazi"/jewish ethnic interests:

12. Nazi Germany was not good for the white race. It made war on European states and killed millions of white people. To claim that Hitler or the Nazis were "pro-white" is utterly absurd.

13. In World War II, the Nazi leadership deliberately attempted to kill all the Jews in Europe. They did this by the use of shootings, confinement, forced labor, random murder, death camps, and gas chambers. The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was on the order of millions. Had Nazi Germany won the war, they would probably have succeeded in killing all the Jews in the world.

14. White ethno-states should be democratic and libertarian. They should not be fascist or totalitarian states as, for example, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

15. Jews are not the root of all evil. Jews do not force white people to act against their own self-interests. Whites undermine their ethnic interests of their own free will. In general, we should avoid talking about Jews and Jewish influence. Ultimately, it is counter-productive. And in any case, we should not advocate for the harm of Jews or the destruction of Israel.

Later in the exchange Wood permits Van Wijk to play down the danger posed by jews to Whites while playing up the danger posed by Whites who don't:

It is no secret that the majority of American Jews are leftists; so are a great many whites. Since leftist Jews are in most cases racially and culturally white, and since they are too few and pacifistic to pose a physical threat, they can be lumped in with white leftists as a whole and dealt with in the same manner. The problem with the Jew-haters is that they tend to ignore or play down the danger posed by demonstrably violent peoples. Solve the problem of Jewish influence, they say, and all other problems will solve themselves. Every time I’ve asked a Jew-hater what to do about Mestizos or Muslims, the response has been that they can be dealt with “in a straightforward manner.” No one but the Jews are on the Jew-hater’s radar, and Jews are (naturally) responsible for most of the evil in the world. For this reason, the proper response to the likes of Cesar “Himmler is my friend” Tort is to delete his emails and otherwise ignore him. Since Jewish influence looms large in the mind of the Jew-hater and can never be resolved while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage them is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Wood's campaign against Whites who distinguish ourselves from jews continues in The Jew-Hater’s Radar, where she takes special note of Van Wijk's comment and permits Auster to perfect the last sentence:

Since in the minds of the Jew-haters the Jews are the ultimate cause of all the evils facing society, and since, therefore, none of those evils can be solved or even dealt with while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage the Jew-haters is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Auster, Wood, Boris, Van Wijk, Gray and others who think and speak as they do, like Mark Richardson, make sweeping negative pronouncements about Whites just as easily as they do about "jew-haters". Behind their double-talk about "whites" and "liberalism" is an underlying hyper-awareness of jewish interests and a primal, uncompromising drive to defend them.

Amidst the other posts linked above Wood also wrote A Recommendation Retracted:

EARLIER THIS week, I recommended a new website Faith and Heritage. I regret my hasty enthusiasm for a new venture. Disappointingly, Faith and Heritage is beset with the same viral tendency that afflicts many sites that defend white heritage: anti-Semitism.

The passage Wood objected to was contained in a review of The Social Network from a Christian point of view:

Lacking the Christian sense of fair play and good sportsmanship (that even nominal, cultural Christians like the Winklevoss still largely possess, and reinforced through athletics), nursing resentments against our culture and people, the temptation to cheat is almost impossible for them to overcome. The lesson for Christians is simple: avoid dealings with Jews, for they are too risky.

Wood demonstrates here her willingness to condemn even a nominally White spiritual defense as pathological. Her "script", as Auster so helpfully described it, is that Whites (in this case Christians) who exclude the jewish Other are "bad".

Goodbye "Model Minority", Hello Angry Horde

Asians are angry about alexandra's anti-asian video about "manners". Referring to Asians in the Library - UCLA Student's Racist Rant, Angry Asian Man writes:

This is so incredibly ignorant, it's almost hard to believe that she's for real. I've re-watched it several times now, and I actually find myself laughing at the sheer stupidity. For those who want the literary version, here's the full transcript of her rant. It's equally hilarious and infuriating.

He links a few responses from UCLA administration and various asian groups condemning the video, and Alexandra Wallace grovelling for forgiveness. AAM's blog post currently concludes with the following:

UPDATE: The UCLA Asian American Studies Center has also released a statement on "Asians in the Library." An excerpt:

"Asians in the Library" is a travesty on many levels, representing an attack on Asian and Asian American students and their families and undermining UCLA as a global university with deep ties to communities and institutions in Asia and other parts of the world. It entails a "new racism" by foregrounding students who speak Asian languages and have different family traditions, as it insidiously groups and attacks UCLA's American-born as well as our international students of Asian ancestry. As the only University of California campus without a diversity requirement, UCLA surely needs to implement a diversity requirement that will expose every student to the task of living civilly with people of different origins, backgrounds, orientations, and beliefs, whether they are born here or come from abroad.

A diversity requirement might not be such a bad idea.

Two UCLA Professors Seek Campus Diversity Requirement:

In the aftermath of a racially offensive Internet video, two University of California, Los Angeles professors are urging the administration to require diversity training for students in hopes of discouraging such incidents.

Dr. David Yoo, director of the Asian American Studies Center, and Dr. Lane Hirabayashi, department chairman of Asian American studies, issued a joint statement this week observing that, “We still have much work to do before we can claim to live in a ‘post-racial’ society.”

The phrase “ching chong” is considered an ethnic slur that historically mocked Chinese speaking patterns but sometimes has been aimed at other Asians. Asian Americans comprise the largest racial group among 26,000 UCLA undergraduates at 37 percent; Whites make up 32 percent.

Both UCLA scholars called on the administration “to respond institutionally since the video addresses larger issues of campus climate and culture.” They called the video rant “a travesty representing an attack on Asian and Asian American students and their families and undermining UCLA as a global university. This type of prejudice and use of derogatory words cannot be tolerated.” They urged the administration to implement a diversity requirement for students.

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block released a statement on Monday afternoon saying he was “appalled” by Wallace’s comments and that her opinions do not reflect nor represent UCLA.

“I recoil when someone invokes the right of free expression to demean other individuals or groups. Speech that expresses intolerance is indefensible,” Block said.

Colleges around the country have steadily added academic courses with a diversity component or global cultures aspect, requiring undergraduates to complete a certain number of credit hours as a graduation prerequisite.

The problem is indeed ignorance - an ignorance deliberately created by an orwellian twisting of words which pathologizes Whites for being "intolerant" of "diversity". The unspoken premise is that White displacement and dispossession is right and good, therefore Whites are mentally or morally defective for objecting in the slightest way. Even the confused rant of a lone, exasperated, powerless White against "ching chonging" "asians in the library" is an intolerable, indefensible crime. Wallace will be punished for her insolent outburst, and the already widespread indoctrination of Whites as to our proper subordinate and silenced place will be further broadened and accelerated.

Those who lie about their motives and methods have no real standing to blame others for being ignorant of them. Dishonesty engenders ignorance. But let's not pretend these anti-White "anti-racist" liars are decrying our lack of understanding. They mock us for it. When they call Whites ignorant it is to abuse and intimidate us. Their orwellian use of the term is nothing but a pretentious, exceptionally intolerant way of trying to shut someone up by calling them stupid.

As with most Whites, Wallace has been misguided and probably used to imagine that the goal of her university and the overarching regime is to educate people, to create a fair, tolerant society where all people are treated equally. Condemned by powerful, race-conscious, self-interested asian organizations and insulted and threatened with violence by faceless hordes of angry asians, Wallace is now finally getting a real education.

Andrew Johnson, White Nationalist

Jamie Kelso's March 1st podcast brought to my attention the article "Andrew Johnson Reconsidered", which was published in the March 1998 issue of Wilmot Robertson's Instauration.

Though Johnson's oratory was noted for its style, the substance was equally impressive. An outspoken man, to put it mildly, today he would be consigned to the ranks of the insensitive at best or the bigoted at worst. Some of his most amusing outbursts were downright racist. In terms of bombast, he could have given any black preacher a run for his money. Of a pro-black voting rights bill, he said:

It would place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, hump-backed, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, woolly headed, ebon-colored Negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man.

His racial philosophy left little room for interpretation:

This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men .... This whole vast continent is destined to fall under the control of the Anglo-Saxon race-the governing and self-governing race.

His reasons for feeling as he did are well-documented:

[The] black race of Africa were inferior to the white man in point of intellect-better calculated in physical structure to undergo drudgery and hardship-standing, as they do, many degrees lower in the scale of gradation that expressed, the relative relation between God and all that he had created than the white man.

The following statement, made in 1866, cannot be easily dismissed today, 135 years after Negro emancipation:

The peculiar qualities which should characterize any people who are fit to decide upon the management of public affairs for a great state have seldom been combined. It is the glory of white men to know that they have had these qualities in sufficient measure to build upon this continent a great political fabric and to preserve its stability for more than ninety years, while in every other part of the world all similar experiments have failed. But if any­ thing can be proved by known facts, if all reasoning upon evidence is not abandoned, it must be acknowledged that in the progress of nations Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race or people. No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands. On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.

Johnson didn't mince words about the Negro problem. Even though there wasn't much of a Jewish problem in the U.S. in those days, he was not loath to speak up whenever a Hebrew was in need of a dressing-down. Florida's David Levy Yulee, the first Jew to serve in the U.S. Senate, was berated as a "contemptible little Jew." Of Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin (later to become Attorney General, Secretary of War and ultimately Secretary of State in the Confederacy), Johnson said, "There's another Jew --­that miserable Benjamin! He looks on a country and a government as he would on a suit of old clothes. He sold out the old one; and he would sell out the new if he could in so doing make two or three million." Benjamin was further lambasted as being of "that tribe that parted the garments of our Savior and for his vesture cast lots." In pre-ADL days, however, such bold comments were not career killers. Of course, if we had speeches like that in Congress today, C-Span would be a real ratings puller.

As a baseborn white, Johnson instinctively distrusted the Southern planter class, which wielded so much power in western and central Tennessee. Johnson represented the mountainous, eastern part of the state, where the residents tended towards yeomanry. He found that no matter how high he rose in politics, no matter how prosperous he was in his private life, he was never accepted by his "betters." His particular brand of populism may have been inspired as much by his own experience as by his reverence for the Constitution:

The aristocracy in this district know that I am for the people....They know that I love and desire the approbation of the freemen of this State....The fact of a farmer or mechanic stepping out of the field or shop into an office of distinction and profit, is particularly offensive to an up­ start, swelled headed, iron heeled, bobtailed aristocracy, who infest all of our little towns and villages, who are too lazy and proud to work for a livlihood [sic], and are afraid to steal.

Though easier said than done, his recommendations for a robust republic still resonate:

I want no rabble here on one hand, and I want no aristocracy on the other. Lop off the aristocracy at one end, and the rabble at the other, and all will be well with the republic.

His antipathy to the plantation aristocracy was not just class envy. Johnson blamed it for fanning the flames of secession for its own benefit-certainly not for the benefit of the poor whites who formed the core of his constituency and had to bear the brunt of battle after secession.

I am for a government based on and ruled by industrious, free white citizens, and conducted in conformity with their wants, and not a slave aristocracy. I am for this government above all earthly possessions, and if it perish I do not want to survive it. I am for it though slavery be struck from existence and Africa be swept from the balance of the world ... .If you persist in forcing this issue of slavery against the government, I say, in the face of heaven, give me my government and let the Negro go!

In other words, the welfare of the country is more important than the status of the Negro, be he slave or free man. In Johnson's time, as in our own, too many people of influence and power have these priorities reversed.

It isn't clear from the article which of Johnson's quotes came before, during, or after his term as president in the wake of America's most fratricidal, uncivil war. At the very least readers today can see that 90-odd years after Thomas Jefferson asserted the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal" there were still White leaders at the very top who believed Whites could and should govern Whites "to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". You know, the kind of thing recent US presidents believe about jews.

David Lynch Murdered, Demonized by Media

White Supremacist David Lynch Shot in Head at Home, ABC, Russell Goldman, 4 March 2011:

One of the country's leading white supremacists was gunned down in his California home, shot in the head and torso as his pregnant girlfriend watched, police said.

David Lynch, 40, an organizer for the American Front, one of the country's oldest skinhead groups, was killed in his home early Wednesday morning. Lynch's 33-year-old girlfriend, who is five months pregnant, was shot in the leg.

Soon after police responded to the 911 call, they arrested Charles Demar, 36, another white supremacist and acquaintance of Lynch. Authorities are calling Demar "a person of interest." They charged him with drug possession.

Since the 1980s, Lynch has been on the radar of law enforcement and organizations that monitor hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Lynch as a "clever and charismatic racist skinhead organizer whose history of racist activism dates back to the late 1980s."

Lynch rose through the ranks of California's skinhead movement, consolidating power and ultimately uniting once rival racist organizations throughout the state, as well as in Utah, Florida and Canada, according to the SPLC. In 2005, he met with then-National Alliance chairman William Pierce, perhaps the most prominent American neo-Nazi, when Pierce visited Sacramento, according to SPLC.

The Anti-Defamation League calls the American Front one of the "oldest continuously active racist skinhead groups in the United States."

On its website the group describes itself as "a collective of highly motivated racialists of European descent, striving to establish an autonomous homeland for American whites, dedicated to securing, advancing, and defending the sacred blood of our glorious ancestors at all costs." Since his death, white supremacists have taken to the Internet to mourn Lynch.

On the Website of White Revolution, a caption under his photo reads "Hero, Patriot, and Friend."

Writing on the same site, Billy Roper, whom the SPLC calls "the uncensored voice of violent neo-Nazism," wrote: "Dave Lynch: My Friend, and one of the best men I've ever known, a hero of our people and our cause. We are in shock."

White supremacist David Lynch shot dead, Calif. police arrest "person of interest", CBS, Camille Mann, 4 March 2011.

Police have arrested a person of interest in the killing of prominent white supremacist David Lynch, a chief organizer of the skinhead movement in the 1980s.

David Lynch, white supremacist leader of the American Front, shot dead in California home: cops, NY Daily News, Aliyah Shahid, 4 March 2011:

Lynch was the leader of the American Front, which according to the Anti-Defamation League is one of the "oldest continuously active racist skinhead groups in the United States." He began working as an organizer for the group in the 1980s.

"The group espouses an anti-Semitic, white supremacist ideology and disseminates its message in public events that demonize Jews, immigrants, and other minorities," the ADL says on its website.

Lynch's acquaintances told The Bee that Lynch was working as an asbestos removal contractor. The doormat in front of his home read, "Come back with a warrant."

Local gang expert Lt. Milo Fitch described Lynch to CBS News as "one of the most well known and influential figures in the white supremacist movement."

'This is a significant event in the white supremacist world - it will send shock waves," he added.

The Associated Press: Skinhead leader killed in shooting at Calif. home, AP, 4 March 2011:

Authorities say a leading white supremacist known for organizing skinhead groups has been fatally shot at his Northern California home.

Skinheads In Sacramento: The death of David Lynch brings bad memories to past victims of white hate groups, Fox KTXL Sacramento, Lonnie Wong, 4 March 2011:

The death of white supremacist organizer David Lynch, founder of the group American Front, was a suprise to victims of hate violence in the Sacramento area.

"I didn't know there was a leader so prominent living in our community," said Sacramento County supervisor Jimmie Yee. Yee's home was firebombed in 1993 by Richard Campos, a teenaged white supremacist who grew up near his neighborhood.

Yee said hate crimes have no place in Sacramento and that Lynch's death was a wake-up call. Lynch was found shot in the head in his Citrus Heights home. He was one of the nation's best known hate-group leaders and was described as charismatic by those who track hate-groups and their leaders.

"It's disturbing," said Sacramento City council member Jay Schenirer who is the president of the B'nai Israel synagogue, one of three in the area that were firebombed in what is known as the "Summer of Hate," in 1999.

Lt. Milo Fitch, a gang unit officer who tracked white hate groups for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, said it's not suprising tht neighbors didn't know Lynch's history. Lynch often wore khaki pants and button-up shirts, according to intelligence from hate watch organizations. Clothing and tattoos don't necessarily define an ideology.

"Many of them come from middle class families, not from the lower socio-economic groups you find with other gang members," said Fitch.

Yee says the community should be aware of groups that take a lower profile.

"That type of organization is still very active and they'll do anything to cover up their activities," said Yee.

Schenirer said they have to take a more sophisticated preventative approach to dealing with young people who are recruited by hate-groups. That means education programs for middle and high school students.

"The intervention after it's happened aren't going to work really well. We need to the community to work on the prevention side of it," said Schenirer.

In a few more years these same people will be surprised and disturbed to discover they have any White neighbors, period.

A man killed in a Citrus Heights home has been positively identified as David Lynch, a skinhead leader and founder of branches of the group American Front, KTXL, 4 March 2011:

The shooting investigation remains on-going, and anyone with information should contact the Citrus Heights Police Department's Tip Line at (916) 727-5524 and reference CHPD Case number 1102586.

White supremacist leader killed in Calif, MSNBC, 4 March 2011:

Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told msnbc.com that Demar is also a white supremacist who goes by the name Charlie Boot. He is the lead singer of Stormtroop 16, a white-power rock 'n' roll band, Potok said.

[Citrus Heights police Lt. Gary] Hendricks told KXTV police are investigating whether Lynch's death is related to an association with skinhead groups.

"We're following up leads in regards to (Lynch being part of a skinhead organization) based on a rumor that is actually coming from the media, not from us," Hendricks told the TV station. "So we're following up with regards to that as well. That is part of our investigation as well."

Organizations that monitor hate groups described Lynch as an influential white supremacist with a two-decade-plus history of racial activism.

"I would describe him as a former first-tier leader in the '90s. He was very well-known, especially on the racist skinhead scene. He was a bright and charismatic man and also a man sometimes with incredible potential for violence," said Potok of the SPLC.

According to his enemies, David Lynch was a bad person. It is a measure of their influence that within hours of Lynch's murder every major media outlet has quickly broadcast their negative views, not as a paid advertisement or op-ed, but as raw, supposedly objective news. Lynch's own words, and the reactions of his friends and supporters, are either not mentioned or are minimized. While several reports cite and even link to the non-White supremacist ADL and SPLC as authorities, none link Lynch's own American Front.

American Front defines itself in Fighting For the White Worker Since 1984!:

Who We Are

We are a collective of highly motivated racialists of European descent, striving to establish an autonomous homeland for American whites.

We are dedicated to securing, advancing, and defending the sacred blood of our glorious ancestors at all costs.

We will work to promote our values, goals and ideals so that this and future generations of our folk will not be enslaved by the greed of Capitalism, the oppression of Communism, or the disgrace of multiculuralism.

We believe in White unity first and foremost, putting petty and personal differences aside to concentrate on the real issues of our dying race.

We do not pollute our bodies with drugs or excessive drinking, as we attempt to live as man was intended with pure mind, body, and race.

We believe that we must be as self sufficient as possible, first in our own daily lives then in our nation.

We accept many different political stances as long as race is the first component of their platform.

We accept any religion unless it contradicts racial law.

We feel the struggle of our people is not a gender specific issue therefore both men and women are accepted as full members.

We strive to make sure our membership is comprised of quality individuals; solid comrades are the backbone of solid organizations.

We believe in the re-institution of the morality, strength, and honor of our revolutionary forefathers.

We will heed the call in defense of all that is sacred to our family, race, and nation.

We are Greyshirts, and if you are a loyal white racialist, we believe in you!

I had not previously heard of David Lynch. If, like me, you're curious what it is that he believed that so disturbs the ADL and SPLC, then you'll want to read Commonly Asked Questions & Answers Concerning the American Front.

The people who hate David Lynch hate Whites for being White.

Paul Fromm talked about Lynch in his most recent podcast, The Fighting Side of Me: In Memoriam, David Lynch at Voice of Reason.

In RIP Dave Lynch at Occidental Dissent, Andrew Yeoman writes:

For those unfamiliar with Dave he was a lifelong advocate of white people and worked tirelessly to bring justice to our people. Lynch was a driven and highly motivated leader and charismatic man that led a turbulent yet increasingly effective community of men and women in the skinhead scene and beyond.

Raised in San Francisco during the 1980′s, he is survived by two daughters and an unborn child.

Dave was a great man. I knew Dave as a tough, street smart, and passionate man who deeply loved his family, the future of our people, and the legacy of white advocates such as Bob Mathews and surviving members of The Order.

I will miss his guidance and laughter like the loss of my own brother.

David Lynch wanted what I want. I'm eager to learn more about Lynch and the skinhead scene. Comments with information and links to other coverage are requested.