Jaffrey, NH: ADL Defames Small-Town Patriotic Rally

The following editorial is based upon a press statement issued to the residents of Jaffrey, New Hampshire, and neighboring communities, which was distributed to homes throughout the region on the weekend of the “Live Free or Die” rally in defense of the state’s motto, which took place on Saturday, August 26, 2006. Activists with the Boston unit of National Vanguard were present throughout the event, in spite of ADL-instigated pressure tactics, to present the public with a positive, objective image of our worldview and outreach efforts, as well as to clarify the true motivations behind the recent censorship attempts. In a forthcoming sequel to this article, video footage of the event will be made available, which includes an in-depth interview with the event organizer who suffered defamation and harassment at the hands of the ADL, as well as a shocking interview with a local sellout state representative, whose replies to our questions during the discussion make it clear that his slavishly “Israel-first” stance takes precedent over all else, including loyalty to his own country.

By Matthew Downing
National Vanguard Boston

There has been a wave of recent controversy which made headlines in the local media in the Mount Monadnock region of New Hampshire-- the coverage of which became nationwide news when it was picked up by the Associated Press-- over the presence of supposed “White supremacist” groups thought to be participating or present within an event celebrating the New Hampshire state motto, “Live Free or Die”, which took place on August 26th, 2006 in the nearby community of Jaffrey. In the weeks prior to the day of the event, the small town rally had been promoted on the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a patriotic pro-White organization, which enjoys a strong grassroots following in the Southern states. Such affiliations between the event organizer, Jean Coutu, and the CofCC were seized upon by the Keene Sentinel in a transparent attempt to instigate a scandal over the event as supposedly “extremist” in the effort to frighten local residents and visitors from participating.

The media campaign to frighten visitors away from this event originated with a pressure group known as the Anti Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, which claims to fight “hate” and “extremism”, yet often in reality often irresponsibly and cynically attempts to use such labels to silence any organization or advocacy group it happens to disagree with. The ADL had listed the event on its sight as a “hate” rally and attempted to persuade local officials and state reps billed as speakers to back out of the event, as well as to encourage the local press to denounce the organizers as potential “bigots”. Such intimidation and pressure tactics have become the trademark of organizations such as the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center, in their attempts to censor and suppress any point of view or expression of free speech which runs contrary to their agenda.

It’s very easy to dismiss an idea from being heard by oversimplifying and demonizing it with a label such as “hate” or “extremism”, which carries such inherently negative connotations and emotional baggage. It also enables those who don’t want a certain argument or point of view to be heard or considered by the general public to instill a pre-conditioned fear in the frank discussion of certain topics by making it a powerful social taboo. Groups like the ADL which employ such tactics do so with the intention of creating a climate of fear in regard to anything spoken in the defense of the long-term interests, and ultimately the survival of Whites as a people. By making something such as this a social taboo, complete with all the negative consequences which go along with breaking it, ordinary people, especially fellow Whites, feel intimidated to discuss certain issues in private, and especially in public, with any sense of objectivity or honesty.

In a free and open society does that really benefit anyone? How can you arrive at a balanced judgment of such vital issues- however controversial they may be- facing modern American society as race and immigration if you are only allowed to hear one carefully handpicked, pre-approved point of view? Isn’t that basically censorship?

Is it truly “hateful” to simply take a sincere interest in the future of one’s own kind? Does this necessarily mean that by doing so, an individual or group is motivated by an irrational, malicious desire to threaten the well-being of other groups? Is it really a prerequisite to “hate” someone of another color and creed simply by following the principal of “family comes first” by taking a particular interest in the survival and prosperity of our own kind? We certainly don’t feel so, but that’s not what the media says whenever pro-White organizations receive press coverage.

In modern-day America, we take for granted that under the premise of the increasingly multiracial and multiethnic construct which this country has become that just about every separate race, creed, and even sexual orientation are allowed, and even actively encouraged to represent themselves within the body politic by forming interest groups, caucuses, political action committees, schools, community centers, and so forth. Organizations such as the NAACP operate on the premise of defending African-American interests, groups like La Raza actively work on behalf of Latino-Americans, and civil liberties organizations fight to protect the interests of gay and transgendered Americans, and yet we find that European-Americans are the only group within this country who are called “racists”, “bigots”,and “haters” when they attempt, even in a peaceful and noninvasive manner to concern themselves with the fact that we too, may have interests of our own. The question which we ask you to ask yourselves with the concept of fairness in mind is: why should that be any different for us? Are such double standards just or fair in a society where all of its members are held to be equal before the law?

The media and groups like the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center jump at every opportunity to label Whites who speak out on such issues as possessing some sort of inherent “hate”, simply on the basis of dissenting in any way, no matter how slight on the notion, that we unlike everyone else, should not have group interests, and to think otherwise is somehow outdated or bad. This is an unjust and inconsistent double standard in modern day America. For instance, does anyone in turn accuse the NAACP of “hating” White people simply because they have a strong love for their own community which happens to take a great deal of precedent? Are the organizers of the gay-rights group GLAAD held suspect on the charge that they hate all straight people? We don’t think so either, and we in turn refuse to passively except such labels ourselves.

One thing which we are certainly not, and have never been, despite what the media may call us is “White supremacists”, or a “hate group”. We do not advocate, in public or in private, any sort of society or governmental system based upon the economic and social exploitation or oppression of any other group of people on this earth. Yet we are deeply concerned about the indisputable reality that we, as an entire people, are being increasingly marginalized with each passing generation and forced to unquestioningly accept our eventual disappearance as a distinct racial group in every single Western nation which we have built-- from North America, to our homeland in Europe, and beyond. Given only a few more decades of immigration in its present form, Whites will in fact be the minority in nearly every single country where we once constituted the majority of the population. We are genuinely concerned about the fact that given the general lack of public representation of White interests, while we are increasingly becoming a maligned minority, that we risk being submerged and eventually disappearing as a distinct group from this earth. We risk losing our basic human right to exist. In America this is estimated to happen by 2050, as a consequence of massive, unchecked Third World immigration coupled with our below-replacement level White birthrate. Other Western nations will follow suit within the same approximate timeframe. We feel our people at least need to be aware of this fact and to be brave enough to discuss whether or not that is a good thing for us with some level of honesty. Is that in and of itself “hate”?

What we do feel is unconditional love for our people, in spite of all adversity we face for doing so, in spite of the jeering, mislabeling, and fierce harassment that most of us face on a day to day basis in our personal and public lives simply for having the courage to speak out on behalf of our own kind. Most of us who feel that way have experienced on a personal level what it means to take such a stance, and maybe a few of you reading this who also question the way things are have as well in some way or another. It’s a simple fact that to speak openly on a controversial topic such as the issue of race can be a dangerous thing for one’s personal life and even one’s family. It’s that strong uncompromising love, which gives us the courage to speak out in a world, and indeed to far too many of our people, who have been conditioned throughout their lives to fear and hate us. We don’t have much to gain on a personal level by doing what we do, and yet, we can’t help but to keep struggling on. To the contrary, those of us who put themselves out there risk every sort of personal defamation, loss of jobs, loss of friendships, intimidation and harassment. But somehow we keep pushing on, not because we hate others but because our love for our own people gives us the inner strength and sense of personal dignity to face and ultimately to seek to overcome such obstacles. No one in their right mind is going to risk losing all the personal comforts that an easy life offers, because of petty, shallow “hate”.

It may be true enough that some of you who have had the opportunity to read our literature or check out our website may or may not agree with every single one of our own viewpoints which we advocate, but don’t you find it somewhat insulting to your own intelligence and personal judgment when an outside pressure group such as the ADL attempts to scare you away from a non-aligned celebration of our basic American liberties, including free speech, simply because some people are present who may be expressing views contrary to their own? Whether you agree with us or not or simply haven’t made up your minds about us yet, don’t you feel entitled as American citizens to make your own objective decision? Do you personally feel the need for outside pressure groups to determine what is acceptable public discourse, and to effectively dictate what you can and cannot hear spoken in a free and democratic society?

The ADL may not be able to do much more at the present aside from finger point, intimidate, demonize, and harass anyone it happens to disagree with, ironically enough to “defame” people, yet it and other like-minded special interest groups would like to see the actual criminalization of such speech, under broad-reaching Orwellian “hate speech” laws such as the kind which already exist in much of Europe. Is that the kind of society any of us wants to live in? Where we can actually be put in jail or fined for simply peacefully expressing a political opinion or point of view? Is this the America that Patrick Henry proudly sought to defend when he uttered the epic declaration “Live Free Or Die?”

Created By member on 08/29/2006 02:53 PM

Last updated by member on 08/29/2006 03:46 PM

http://nvboston.com/index.php?module=article&view=51&18501bbb98c21f2ac00fa88fb1d87dbf=009ee309773f82c9ac14465e1df362d5