L. Paul Bremer, former head of the US Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, popped up for an interview recently. Bremer (His nickname "Jerry" is much too bland. Victorian custom might accord our hero the moniker of "Baghdad.") had nothing to say about the bang-up job he did in managing the occupation of Iraq from 2003-2004. But as a former ambassador to the Netherlands, he did elect to share his wisdom on the subject of Islam in Europe.

Bremer is a Neoconservative, in case his position in Baghdad didn't clue you in. As such, he purports to defend the heritage of the West while maintaining a worldview and positions that only work to undermine it.

Defenders of multiracialism never cease to amaze me, despite their having a long and well-established record of wilful ignorance, dishonesty, hypocrisy, disingenuousness, muddled thinking, and outright inanity. After reading Cleo Brown's yapping in the Hip Hop Republicans' website, I have to wonder whether even the most powerful electron microscopes would be able to detect a brain inside some of these multiracialists' prognathous skulls.

Brown's "rebuttal" to Alternative Right magazine is yet another - and, as usual, spectacularly incompetent - iteration of the old, tired, lazy, clichéd, fallacious, always tedious, and never convincing argumentum ad Hitlerum, riddled with errors and laden with the usual dysphemisms and non sequiturs. After a protracted whine about being denied a doctorate twenty-six years ago and about her subsequent (failed) complaint about her having been victim of "discrimination", she proceeds to characterize the present website as a venue for "White Supremacy" and the website's contributors as being "obsessed with Arian [sic] Superiority".

As you would expect from someone who cannot tell the difference between Arian (to do with the theological teachings of Arius) and Aryan (to do with the Aryan race), Brown has not read the website very carefully. Had she done so, she would have found the argumentum ad Hitlerum already rebutted in my blog of 15 March, where I wrote:

I have read with some amusement the attacks on Richard Spencer and his present project, which over the past few days have multiplied on the internet like microbes in a culture. I note that Spencer’s enemies share two salient characteristics: a religious belief in human equality and a Borg-like collective consciousness: they have all articulated identical criticisms (e.g., Spencer and other Alternative Right writers do not mind discussing the existence and consequences of human biodiversity) and two of these critics, exasperated by the absence of tattoos on Spencer’s visage, have faithfully reproduced what strikes me as an obviously apocryphal story. As is often the case with attacks from mainstream quarters, they reveal more about the nature of the attacker than about the target. In evidence are obtuse, conformist minds that take pride in their willful ignorance; slow, dull brains of negligible cubicage and low neural density; mean-spirited souls whose likely response times in IQ tests would need to be measured in geological eras.

What is ironic whenever these politically correct ninnies scream about ‘racism’ is that in doing so they lay bare the illogical and contradictory nature of their position. If one is a champion of diversity, one celebrates the evidence of its existence. Yet, these anti-racist nupsons who so vehemently and ridiculously object to our analyses declare themselves champions of diversity only to then wail in horror and undo themselves in invective, whining, and vituperation each time evidence of diversity is acknowledged in oral or written communication. To my mind, this is indicative of hypocrisy: the aforementioned anti-racists claim to be one thing, but are, in fact, quite another. Beneath their fine, universalist rhetoric and celebrations of multicuturalism lurks a totalitarian heart, yearning for total homogeneity: their ideal world is a grim ball of mud, where all humans look the same, think the same, speak the same, and earn the same, in conformity to the Left’s delirious visions of universal equality – a brave new world of gray cities and cement office blocks, filled with polyester carpets, neon lights, Formica surfaces, and rows upon rows of identical cubicles. Does not equality necessitate homogeneity? Does not diversity necessitate heterogeneity? Is not the former predicated of sameness and the latter on difference? If so, then, why is human biodiversity such a problem?

A great many pixels have bee spilt over Ron Unz's March cover story in The American Conservative, "Hispanic." The critiques that appeared at AltRight and VDARE can be found here, here, and here -- and Unz's response to them, here. If you'd like to follow the debate play-by-play, the best place to turn is this exhaustive catalogue on the Conservative Heritage Times's blog.

And just today, Jason Richwine has written another blog on the subject, this time over at AEI, and he includes this startling new revelation:

Though this is only one of many contentious issues, Unz suggested that a 2006 report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) could help resolve it. The PPIC report uses incarceration data from California’s government that Unz says could be among the most reliable available. The report gives an HDW of 1.48, which Unz claims as a victory. Once we control for age, he says, the HDW comes down to just about his 1.1 estimate.

But Unz missed something important in the report. The 1.48 number is already fully controlled for age. I exchanged emails with one of the PPIC report’s coauthors to confirm this fact.

"AnteBragd" was upset by my article on the illustrious M. Van Rompuy. His/her arguments are incorrect, illogical or just plain silly. They are worthy of a response, however, because millions of Europeans are being force-fed such platitudes every day - as relentlessly, in fact, as we are being force-fed les victimes du jour by The Morning Edition...

• "Just because a lot of the paleos repeatedly claims that the EU is some kind "prison of nations" and rally or mock it by calling it EUSSR does not make it so. It is not so, by the simple reason, that all member states has [sic!] chosen to become members."

"Chosen"? Just ask the Danes or the Irish. When the people of a state say "no" to membership, or to an ever-tighter Union once their country is inside the Lager, they will be subjected to relentless pressure by the ruling elite to change their mind and say "yes"; but if and when they do succumb - as the Irish did to Lisbon last year, having been subjected to a massive barrage of Brussels-endowed Agitprop - now, that decision is treated as irreversible. The Euro-elite treats "democracy" as the process of manufacturing ideologically desirable outcomes determined in advance of the ostensible decision. The failure to produce one equals the failure of democracy; ergo the process will be fine-tuned and reactivated until it performs as expected.

Having just read the Hate Watch bulletin of the SPLC about the cancellation of the American Renaissance conference, scheduled for February 15, I came away with heightened contempt for the "conservative movement." I don't blame the two DC hotels that refused to host the conference for the recent fiasco, or even the Four Point Sheraton at Manassas, which backed out at the last moment. These establishments were properly concerned that those whom Hate Watch describes as "antiracist activists" would vandalize their property and rough up the guests. In today's Western world, and particularly in such decayed former nations as Germany and Spain, the antifascist Left is free to do what it wants, and this often includes going on the rampage against uncooperative reactionaries or stubbornly bourgeois Christians. What is now happening to us is a belated replication of the European "liberal democratic" scene.

Of course, I don't expect the Left to be standing up for someone's right to detail the violent crimes of ethnic minorities. Not that the Left is really against racism. Indeed, it never complains about professors at elite universities who make careers out of trashing whites and in particular white males.