It's not easy getting three groups that hate each other to sit in a room and have a civil discussion about their differences. It's so hard, in fact, that we failed. The only way we could pull this off was to have the fascist have it out with the nationalist, tell the socialist what happened later on, and then let the socialist come in and discuss it with the nationalist. We may not be able to get a Jew and a Nazi to sit together in the same room, but the scenario we set up here still beautifully illustrates the difference between hate, pride, and unconditional love for all.

The fascist is a British neo-Nazi skinhead named simply Tweety. He's head of the Pollockshaw Skins. The nationalist is a controversial "race relations and immigration" expert named Jared Taylor (author of, among others, A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century). And the socialist is Danny Goldberg, owner of Artemis Records and author of Dispatches From the Culture Wars: How the Left Lost Teen Spirit.



Tweety: You know what I hate about you nationalists? You pretend to be white pride, but you don't really give a shit about whites. You like Africa and Japan and Jews. You don't truly believe that we are the superior race.
Jared Taylor: The way I see it about whites is the way people feel about their children as opposed to other people's children. I love my own children more than I love anybody else's children, not necessarily because they're better, but simply because they're mine, and that's the way I think all healthy people feel about their people and their culture. And the fact that I do love my children the way I do doesn't mean I harbor the slightest hostility toward the children of other people—although I certainly wouldn't make the same sacrifices for other people's children, nor do I have the same kind of deep loyalty to and love for them that I have for my own children. I think it's all a perfect analogy.

Yeah, but how can you not hate Jews? What is it about National Socialism [read: Nazi—Ed.] that you can't handle?
Well, I don't really think one way or the other about Jews. I'm interested in preserving Western culture and to the extent that Jews are part of Western civilization, that's fine.

But they're obsessed with ramming their shit down our throats. They control the media and they insist we hear about the Holocaust again and again. They also ram multiculturalism down our throats—not because they care, but if they harbor a world free of hate nobody will gas them ever again.
Well, I don't like to ascribe motives to people other than the motives that they actually claim, but in the case of Earl Raab, who at one time was the president of Brandeis University, he said that he looked forward to the day when the United States would have a nonwhite majority, because only then would he feel confident that the United States would no longer be capable of establishing a Nazi-like, "exterminate the Jews" regime.

Well, what he's in effect saying is, "Unless all you white people are diluted by Haitians and Mexicans and Guatemalans, America could rise up against the Jews anytime." These new people are certainly not going to have any more concern about Jewish interest than whites. He's proposing a process that is going to destroy our country as we know it, as our ancestors built it, so that he can sleep well at night. I think that that's practically a declaration of war.

What these liberal faggots don't understand is that when you have all these balkanized races together, America becomes not a melting pot but a fighting pot. When whites become a minority, elections will become a "racial head count" where spics vote for the spic president, blacks for the black president. They are all going to hate each other, and the Jews will be the first to go. Whites need to be in control because we are the most civilized.
I remember a trip to Mexico recently where I was surprised to find the Protocols of the Elders of Zion just for sale quite casually in bookstores. You don't find that in the United States.

Everyone hates Jews. We're the least of their problems.
I certainly don't hate Jews. What they're doing is understandable for all sorts of historical reasons. They were singled out for persecution, and I think Jews as a consequence are nervous about any nation that has a clear, explicit religious or racial core—any kind of self-consciously homogenous philosophy—because then to the extent that they don't blend in, they will stand out. But I think many Jews are perfectly capable and happy to blend in to Western civilization without maintaining some kind of potentially attention-getting distinctiveness.

OK, at least admit we're superior to blacks.
Well, many white people, especially liberals, prefer the company of blacks. They find blacks more spontaneous, more gregarious; they say blacks have a kind of spontaneous generosity. Blacks are not to be disdained for preferring that kind of atmosphere over what they would consider the very uptight and restrained, suppressed behavior of whites. So, it's not an either-or question. People generally prefer the ways and cultures of their own group to that of others, and it reminds me of what a Frenchman once said: "Every country considers itself superior to its neighbors, and every country is right."

The world would be better off if whites were in control.
All right, but if you'd look at all the characteristics whereby whites might be considered superior to blacks, you'll find that according to many of those characteristics Asians are superior to whites. That doesn't mean, on the other hand, that I want the United States to be peopled by or run by Asians.

Yes, but chinks and nips and gooks are all out of their fucking minds. They are godless.

I lived in Japan for the first sixteen years of my life, and I speak fluent Japanese and make part of my living working as a consultant for U.S. companies doing business with Japan, so I spend a lot of time with Japanese. The fact is, it's all very well to call them irreligious, and yet their lack of interest in organized religion does not by any means translate into what we would look upon as immorality, in the sense of burglary, crime, white-collar crime, violent crime, sexual peccadilloes. For example, the illegitimacy rate in Japan is far lower than in the United States.

OK, I think they're all robots, but let's drop it. What about Africa? The only time it's had any kind of order is when we were there.
You can certainly make that argument. The brother of Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, just recently made headlines for saying that South Africa was better off and Africa was better off under white rule, under colonial rule.

Yeah, Nelson Mandela ruined that place. It's in civil war now.
Well, the question you have to ask Africans would be, "Do you prefer the chaos of black rule or do you prefer the alleged indignities and better orderliness of society under white rule?" And, I think, if a majority of blacks say they would rather live free in poverty, or have black rule in poverty rather than white rule in orderliness, then you have to respect that view. I'm not sure, though, that any large black population has ever had that option presented to them that way.

But that's like asking a baby if he wants to eat chocolate bars for dinner every night. He's going to say yes. They're not even smart enough to do what's best for them. Look at the farms in Zimbabwe.
I would hesitate to make that kind of judgment for any other group, because I just think, on principle, every group should have the freedom to let its own destiny unfold. And if the destiny of blacks is to wreck their societies, it's certainly not our right to go in and set things right. Perhaps you might argue it's our responsibility, but I think that it's something that we should approach with an enormous amount of hesitation and even humility.

You could make the argument that Africa was better off in some respects before contact with either Arabs or Europeans. They had a very primitive tribal society, but from what we can tell—and it's difficult to tell—in terms of just the kind of chaos and warfare and bloodshed and horror that we read about now in Africa, there was considerably less of that. There was a very traditional, primitive society in which people more or less got along in a tribal fashion.

I want the blacks to go back to Africa, and I want America to be white again.
My great goal and hope is simply to preserve my people. I think that's the most natural, normal, and healthy thing in the world. I think every healthy member of every national or ethnic group feels that way. You find that sentiment obviously in Israel, for example; you find that sentiment in Japan, in Korea, in Mexico. People want to preserve their people, their culture, their way of life, and I have absolutely no embarrassment about saying that my culture, people, and way of life are intimately and inextricably bound up in a certain kind of biology.

But you don't want everyone to leave. What do you want to do with them? Give spics Nebraska and niggers Ohio?
I have no idea. It's difficult for me to imagine what some future political solution would be like. But, there has to be some kind of territory, and whites as a self-consciously self-preserving group have some opportunity to follow their own destiny. That to me is absolutely vital for survival. If things continue as they are, we will become a minority—increasingly a minority—and, given the record of nonwhite groups within the United States, I think an increasingly hated and despised minority.

The only political proposals that I have ever made are an end to immigration and also an end to all antidiscrimination laws. I think that if it were possible to establish one's life strictly according to voluntary association, then the United States would gradually move toward a kind of de facto separateness.

And what do you say to all these sniveling left-wing scum who say white people are immigrants.
Well, I'm a preservationist for my kind, my race, and my group. Of course, the history of the United States is one unending misfortune and catastrophe for Indians. I think there's no question about that. On the other hand, the way the world has worked, it's interesting, up until, I would say, about, oh, maybe the 1800s or 1820s, maybe even further than that, the rules of the game were, if you could take land, then you deserved it. That's the way it has always been in history. And so the Indians that were here, of course, the ones who had the land, in many cases they had taken it from other Indians they had exterminated. The rules of the game finally changed as I say maybe in the mid-19th century, and it's only a very, very recent blink of an eye in terms of world history that the idea has been, even if you can conquer your neighbor, you should not. That's an extremely new concept; I think it's a good concept. But if we start saying, OK, we're going to have to give America back to the Indians, there's absolutely no end to the process. Then, of course, Japan's got to give itself back to the Ainu; all of the North Africans that are Arab have to be sent back into the Arabian Peninsula and give it back to the Berbers. There's absolutely no end to that process.

Speaking of sand niggers. There is no limit to how far the towel heads will spread. They say 9-11 was Bush's fault because he supported Israel, but what about the Chechens in Moscow? They attacked Russia not because of Israel but because Muslims hate non-Muslims and want us all dead. We can be as just and as civil as we want, but they are coming to get us. Today the world is 30% Christian and 20% Muslim. In 50 years those figures will be reversed, and I don't fucking want that. They don't separate church and state the way we do. It took us hundreds of years to get where we are and I don't want to go back to their primitive ways. They are fucking murderous lunatics.
Well, see, I have a somewhat more benign view of them. I think the Chechens, they want independence. And as the descendent of good Confederates, I totally sympathize with that. The more autonomy the better. Osama and the boys attacked America for three reasons: 1) because America is on sacred Saudi soil; 2) because America supports Israel's unjust occupation of Palestine; 3) because America imposes unfair embargos on Iraq. If they hated the West because we are infidels, they would have attacked Europe. The French were the ones who held them off at the battle of Tours, and it was Europeans who attacked them during the Crusades. I've been to every North African country, and if you talk to people there is one question that keeps coming up: "Why do you support Israel?" You'll be hard-pressed to have a conversation without that question coming up in the first few minutes.

So the Indians were nice, the Africans were peaceful, Jews are whites, nobody has to go home who is here legally. Fuck you. You don't know shit about hate. Name one person you hate.
[laughs] If I were to hate anyone, it would be whites who have betrayed other whites. I don't really have a visceral hatred for him, but Teddy Kennedy, he is one of the great engineers of white dispossession. But I suppose it's difficult to hate him because I think he's convinced by his own lights that he is a good person. He thinks he's doing things that are good for humanity, good for America. It also gets him reelected to the Senate, which I think is probably his psychological life's blood. But it's people like that who tell other whites, "It's going to be great to be a minority, life is so much better with Haitians and Mexicans." Of course it's the people who are in Congress or who are running our newspapers and our television programs who say this, but look in their own lives.

Here in Britain, when people say "diversity" they're thinking about the amazing variety of curry suppers. Nobody goes beyond that. In America, it's all about the rich getting affordable nannies and cheap labor. They don't have to live in the neighborhoods these people immigrate to.
Finally we agree on something. The ones who make these programs—the rich—they don't have to live where the Mexicans park their cars in the front yard rather than have an ordinary lawn. They don't live in a neighborhood where there are Caribbean islanders who keep chickens in the backyard that keep you awake all night. They don't have to listen to loud ranchero music blaring from the open windows of the Mexican neighbors. The extent of the hypocrisy is really quite appalling. I thought it was quite shocking that the great white father, Bill Clinton, said, "This is going to be the great new challenge for America, to learn how to live without a majority population." Well, where did he and Mrs. Clinton buy a house once they left the White House? They bought one in Chappaqua, which is about as white a place as you can find this side of Iceland.

It's the poor bastards like us who have to bear the real brunt of diversity.
Look at all the headlines around the world. Where are people most diligently slitting each other's throats? It's where there's diversity. Diversity of religion, of race, of political affiliation. When you ask diverse people to share the same territory, you're asking for trouble. People say America is different but the only thing different about America is that white people here are happy to be walked all over.

[The Nazi leaves the discussion, several days pass, and now we're down to Jared the nationalist and Danny the socialist]

Danny Goldberg: Reading over the previous dialogue I got a feeling of deep sadness—sadness at the harm that racism can do and sadness for the pain that is obviously underlying the lives and emotions of both debaters.

The first overwhelming fact of anyone's life is their own individuality and soul, and the second—to the extent that they choose to deal with it—is God. These universal human elements give us far more in common with each other than ethnic, religious or national identities can ever separate us. If you don't believe it just spend a few nights in the emergency ward of a hospital.

I can understand the thrill that must come with saying things that are so offensive and socially unacceptable, but no matter how much glamour comes from such a rebellion, the fact is that it is immoral and irrational to judge individual people based on their race or religion or other group identities. There are good and bad people in every large group. Dehumanizing people because of what group they belong to has only brought grief, not only to the victims of prejudice but to the perpetrators of it.

Although he admirably, and sometimes eloquently, refutes much of the blatant prejudice of the Nazi, Jared Taylor is clinging onto some sort of misguided cultural chauvinism when he says that he wants to "preserve my people" and that his "way of life" is "inextricably bound up in a certain kind of biology." Taylor says that citizens of countries such as Japan, Korea, and Mexico have similar sentiments. But the United States is, by design, very different from any other country in the world. Other than the remaining Native American population, it is a nation of immigrants. Even in the earliest days of the Republic there were huge religious and cultural differences between the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of Massachusetts, the Huguenots of upstate New York, and all sorts of other groups of people who fled Europe precisely because they bridled at nationalistic and religious conformity imposed on them. There were undoubtedly some founding fathers who wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation, but clearly, the majority who created the Republic were against such a thing and many of the most famous creators of the first generation of American culture, such as Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin, believed deeply in diversity. Those early Americans built into the genetic code of America the notion of inclusion of people from other cultures. From the very first, there was a debate about slavery, and it took a civil war for the slavery to be abolished. The proslavery Confederates and their allies lost.

By the 20th century, when any of our grandparents were born, American culture and the American soul had been enriched by countless waves of immigrants. It is hard to think of anything quintessentially American (gospel music, movies, rock'n'roll and baseball come to mind) that has not been dependent on diversity.

There is no such thing as an ethnic American culture. American culture is based on an idea—the idea of personal freedom—and it is clearly explained in the founding documents of the country. To the extent to which there was tension between aristocratic traditions and (dare I say it?) liberal currents, generation after generation of Americans chose expansion of freedom, beginning with the elimination of slavery, followed by giving women the vote, the empowerment of labor unions, the civil rights movement, etc. America without such freedoms isn't America—it's old Europe.

Jared Taylor: This is a very common mistake about the origins of the United States. There is so much shouting about "diversity" today, it obscures the founders' actual intentions. Despite what Mr. Goldberg says about Tom Paine and Benjamin Franklin, essentially no one among the early generations of Americans advocated racial diversity for the United States.

In 1787, John Jay wrote in The Federalist Papers that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs." It would be hard to find a sentiment more starkly opposed to "diversity."

The first American naturalization law, passed in 1790, was just as opposed to diversity, limiting citizenship only to "free whites." This conception of the United States as a European nation continued unchanged through the 1960s and took the form of numerous laws barring citizenship or immigration by Asians, as well as a strict quota system on immigration to maintain the racial makeup of the country. To put it bluntly, until the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the United States had an immigration policy explicitly designed to keep the country white.

The notion that the United States was somehow founded for all people everywhere in the world is completely mistaken. The United States did permit immigration from a variety of European countries, but newcomers had to be white and to assimilate to an English-speaking, American culture. The current hippie-happy notion of Haitians and Guatemalans and Vietnamese all joining hands with white natives in a huge celebration of "diversity" is a complete departure from American tradition and would have shocked virtually every American who lived before the 1960s.

Every nation starts out as a nation of immigrants, but unless it is conquered by foreign invaders, it becomes a nation of natives. The United States, founded and built by Europeans, is under no obligation to hold itself open to anyone.

AS TRANSCRIBED BY VICE STAFF
Important note: Though fascist, nationalist, and socialist make for a great header, the participants would rather be seen as a National Socialist vs. a racial realist vs. a civil libertarian. We would have put that instead, but it didn't have the same zing.