The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Books, Book Comments, and Other Website Enhancements
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

After a considerable delay, I’m now pleased to announce the full release of my HTML Book presentation system, oriented toward the display of very long-form content, including scholarly books, in convenient web format. This system initially contains some 200 million words of mostly copyright-expired books, but I hope to grow it considerably over time. Here’s the link to the main page:

Since all these books are presented in HTML format, copy/pasting portions of the text are extremely easy, and the body of the material should soon become incorporated into Google and the other major search engines. Furthermore, I’ve implemented several powerful software technologies for making such long-form text easier to work with, including Sections and Chapters that open dynamically, and “deep linking” to particular paragraphs or phrases by double-clicking your mouse or highlighting some selected text.

Most recently, I’ve enabled full commenting on these books, using the same powerful technology used elsewhere on this website. However, since books generally represent permanent, serious content material, the standards for displayed comments will be much stricter than applied elsewhere. Comments that are substantive, highly topical, and respectfully written will be displayed by default, while all other comments—including those that crudely trace the boundaries of acceptable taste—are displayed in the adjacent “Total Chatter” tab. So if you want your comments on books to be seen by substantial numbers of readers and not cast uselessly into the ether, focus carefully on your quality and grammar.

Furthermore, the very extensive PDF Print archives have now been fully integrated into the system parts of the system, so that both regular website authors and HTML Books now have the complete archives of the writer in question displayed towards the top of the Sidebar in cloud form, which better allows readers to access the quality and history of that writer.

For example, here’s the page for Albert Jay Nock, an important early libertarian writer, containing two of his HTML Books, the first expounding some of his strong “anti-Statist” views, and the second providing a “Revisionist” treatment of the origins of World War I.

Until about about a dozen years ago, I’d never heard of Nock, or at any rate regarded him as a totally obscure fringe figure of his era, known to Libertarians but almost no one else. Yet his print archives show some 150 of his articles in all the influential opinion publications of the early 20th century, clearly ranking him as one of the leading public intellectuals of that period, which greatly adds to the weight and credibility with which his books and other writings should be regarded.

I’ll probably be soon adding a revolving “Featured Book” on the Sidebar, focusing attention on a particular HTML Book and the system in general.


On a different issue, there have been regular complaints that the “Anonymous” and “Anon” commenter options hinder dialogue and greatly increase confusion by obscuring which anonymous commenter is which. As an attempt to thread the needle of this problem by reducing confusion while maintaining strong anonymity, a three-digit numerical identifier, based on the IP address, will be listed after every “Anonymous.”

Otherwise, please use this comment thread to inform me of any recent problems or make additional suggestions.

Hide 70 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Benjaminl says:

    Thank you, Mr. Unz, for this amazing work. Excellent idea — the three-digit ID for Anonymouses.

    Incidentally, I’ve noticed that the “Followed Commenters” page, as well as individual commenters’ pages such as:

    have been taking quite a while to load, recently — at least a couple of minutes or so for such a page to load. Not sure if it’s just me, but it happens on two different laptops that I have.

  2. As one whose columns get a lot of abusive comments, I would appreciate a very simple way of adding commenters to the Ignore list, such as maybe tripe or double clicking on the name.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @anonymous
  3. roo_ster says:

    Nifty. I don;t read long-format on a PC, but I bet it will come in handy for active research and the like.

    Still think you should package up your comment system and sell it. Beats the heck out of any other I’ve used.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  4. “This system initial contains some . . .”

    Probably meant “initially.”

    “Comments will are substantive, . . .”

    should be “Comments which are substantive . . .”

    Two typos out of 2 million words — not bad.

    Thanks a million, Ron.

  5. Ron Unz says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    As one whose columns get a lot of abusive comments, I would appreciate a very simple way of adding commenters to the Ignore list, such as maybe tripe or double clicking on the name.

    Actually, it already exists. Just click the “Agree/Disagree/Etc.” button to open a popup window, then click the “Ignore Commenter” button on that window.

    Regarding the extreme slowness of the Commenter Archive pages, that’s very odd. I just tested half a dozen of them, and they all opened pretty quickly, in just a few seconds each. Have other people been experiencing the same problems?

    • Replies: @res
    , @Anon
    , @Astuteobservor II
  6. RobinG says:

    (1) Anonymous ID indicators

    Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!!!

    • Replies: @David
  7. Lot says:

    After clicking on the agree/disagree button and causing the box to open, clicking on cancel does not cause the box to close, or appear to do anything at all. The window that pops up can only be closed by clicking on agree/disagree again.

    Seems to be a bug, if not what is the function of the cancel button?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  8. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Testing Anonymous ID indicators…

  9. res says:
    @Ron Unz

    Regarding the extreme slowness of the Commenter Archive pages, that’s very odd. I just tested half a dozen of them, and they all opened pretty quickly, in just a few seconds each. Have other people been experiencing the same problems?

    Does it depend on the commenter? Lot is a prolific commenter so I just tried opening his commenter page and it took about 15 seconds on my new and fairly well specced desktop with a fast connection.

    • Replies: @Lot
  10. Ron Unz says:

    After clicking on the agree/disagree button and causing the box to open, clicking on cancel does not cause the box to close

    It’s now fixed.

    • Replies: @Lot
  11. Lot says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thanks. Noticed this a few weeks ago btw.

  12. JackOH says:

    Ron, thanks for all your good work.

    Thanks, also, for talking about “anonymous” as a commenting name. I know some folks have offered reasons why they wish to comment under “anonymous”. I’ve replied once in a great while to an “anonymous” comment.

    I try to imagine what I would think if all the comments on UR were under the “anonymous” name. Can’t say for sure, but I’d be inclined to think not so well of that commentariat. Example: when I read a particularly sharp observation or analysis, I sometimes turn to the commenting history to place that observation or analysis in context and “get” the nuances. Comments under “anonymous” have a mischievous one-off quality that’s off-putting, and have me wary of responding.

    Is there any way of encouraging commenters to choose a name? (BTW-the numerical identifier seems a good idea.)

    • Replies: @anonymous
  13. David says:

    Almost Missouri has an interesting thought about anon-id’s:

    What would particularly irk me were I anonymous is the retroactive tagging of my comments. Ron’s Rules countenanced anonymous comments so long as you did them his way, which I believe anonymous commenters did, but the rules didn’t mention that after leaving a string of anonymous comments, they could be retroactively strung together in a potentially revealing way.

    Not sure how much it maters, but he has a point.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  14. Anon[418] • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you again for your amazing efforts, and clearly intellect. Never realized my Anon handle was annoying, I only do it because my original title stopped being accepted.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  15. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m likely one of those folks.

    One of the downsides of “real handles,” and which is still concerning under this new regime where I am now henceforth #340,* is the inevitable falloff in quality. Those with little of value to say, but who love seeing their “name” in print or feel compelled to share their view or repeat their obsession, are more likely to clog up a thread. They also are enabled to revive and prolong feuds that started elsewhere, and to call out and abuse each other. Have a peek at Taki’s or ZeroHedge to see where this can lead.

    In light of the new system, I’m considering whether to become “Xxxxxx” and even asking for my entire history to be rebranded as such.

    I do appreciate your comments, by the way.


    *Back in 2015, I was one (not the best) of the commenters who logged in as “guest.” I now see some of my “anonymous” comments with a different three-digit figure under an Ilana Mercer column that year; perhaps my email service was different that recently, or I used a different device.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @anonymous
  16. Ron Unz says:

    What would particularly irk me were I anonymous is the retroactive tagging of my comments.

    Okay, that’s a reasonable complaint. I just changed the system so that it only tags anonymous comments made after 3/22/18 GMT. Anyway, if you change your IP, the tag would also change.

    But, frankly, the paranoia of such commenters seems ridiculous to me. Can anyone think of the last time a non-high-profile individual has gotten into trouble for the un-PC comments he made under a website pseudonym, let alone under “Anonymous”?

    As far as I can tell, 99% of the people who get into trouble do so because of the comments they make on their Facebook page or Twitter feed or maybe because they get photographed carrying a banner at a violent Alt-Right rally.

    Why would anyone care what some random person said anonymously on a website?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
  17. Ron Unz says:

    Well, you must have changed your IP or your Email. If you want to provide your old Handle, I’ll merge your Anon comments into it, and also make sure you can use it again with your current IP or Email.

  18. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    Mr. Reed, your columns also receive good faith criticism that you choose to ignore. (It appears that this is your tenth comment on this website, and that the only one under your own columns was in response to Mr. Unz.) For example, several commenters under the current “Civil Insurrection” have addressed your fallacious equivalence of state laws concerning marijuana and immigration. I believe that they’re correct. But you should either concede or argue the point, especially if you’ve time here to criticize the forum.*

    *There’s also the safe space option made available to Mr. Roberts.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @Anon
  19. Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Have other people been experiencing the same problems?

    Yes. res’s comment page took c. 15 sec to load and yours took c. 20 seconds. I’m using firefox on ubuntu.

  20. Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    As far as I can tell, 99% of the people who get into trouble do so because of the comments they make on their Facebook page or Twitter feed or maybe because they get photographed carrying a banner at a violent Alt-Right rally.

    My personal point of view on that is that, frankly, I’m not aware of 99% of the people who get in trouble. It does seem that “doxxing” has posed a real annoyance to real people on a number of occasions, and your “Anon” tag was a pretty good method of avoiding such, though it obviously had its drawbacks.

    Why would anyone care what some random person said anonymously on a website?

    Well, you wouldn’t care of course, which is why it never bothered me that you had records of my IP and so on and could probably identify me if you did care. Your current system is not a bad one and so long as it isn’t applied retroactively no one should mind very much.

  21. @Ron Unz

    it opens really fast, took only 2-3 secs on my computer. it could be a problem on his end.

    anon + ### is godly. now we know which anon we are talking to.

    • Replies: @res
  22. RobinG says:

    Get real. Commenters are given the privilege of expressing their opinions. There’s no obligation for anyone to respond.

  23. res says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    Interesting. I wonder where the bottleneck is. I don’t see how it is my machine (though I do have many Chrome tabs open) and my internet connection is theoretically fast. One possibility is that my ISP is throttling Any other ideas?

  24. JackOH says:

    #340, thanks, and, trust me, my comments regarding the “anonymous” commenting name amount to a very minor quibble regarding this very good site and its commentariat.

  25. Ron Unz says:

    Interesting. I wonder where the bottleneck is.

    Actually, I don’t think 15 sec is unreasonable at all. The pages are very large and complex, and the interwoven/crosslinked comments require a great deal of software processing to generate, which can be slower based on server load issues. The pages I tested generally took 3-12 seconds each.

    My reference was to an earlier commenter, who said that they were taking a couple of *minutes* on his computer, which seemed pretty strange to me.

    • Replies: @res
  26. @res

    I am using vivaldi. a version of chrome with no memory leak issues. I stopped using firefox n chrome because after a certain amount of time, the ram usage would go to 4-8 GB.

    • Replies: @res
  27. res says:
    @Ron Unz

    That sounds reasonable. Thanks for your reply!

  28. res says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    I just downloaded and installed Vivaldi. My commenter page just loaded in 3 seconds in a fresh Vivaldi window. Thanks!

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  29. JackOH says:

    Are there any other readers who view Unz Review as something of a springboard to substantive political action?

    • Replies: @Randal
  30. Anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Your definition of “absolutely anonymous” and “totally anonymous” seems to differ from the conventional understanding of those terms, given your past and ongoing recording of IP addresses. It may be worthwhile to clarify this in your site info. (BTW I’m not the same 340 as the other 340)

    However, any commenter may also freely leave comments under the Anonymous/Anon handles, which are absolutely anonymous. But such totally anonymous comments may easily be misused for back-biting or malicious, unfair attacks on others, and should be taken much less seriously than comments that come “have a return address,” perhaps coming from individuals with established credibility.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    , @Anon
  31. @Anonymous

    you know you can get a named handle without giving out any real info right? a handle just allows better conversation as the other party would know who they are talking to.

    and imo, everyone is already on a list, so who cares? 🙂

  32. iffen says:

    Is it feasible to use the anon with IP digits to set the ignore function?

    I have anon on my ignore list, but with the new rules I could set ignore for the IP identified anon rather than a blanket ignore for all anons.

  33. Anon[578] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Reed, your columns also receive good faith criticism that you choose to ignore.

    The ego’s shorthand for that is “abusive comments”. He didn’t say anything unlike what you say.

  34. Mishra says:

    Your efforts to “thread the needle” are careful and much appreciated.

    The only thing I’d add is that you ask “when was the last time” that any putatively anonymous commenter was exposed to danger. I’m not concerned so much about the last time as I am about the next time. We’re not able to foresee every possible risk or exposure that constantly evolving technology may throw our way.

    I’m not personally too worried but I can easily imagine your site attracting some high-profile readers who have a lot to lose from being exposed.

  35. @roo_ster

    Not sure wether selling it is a good idea. I have recommended it a few times to other side-hosts as – awesome & jaw-droppingly perfect though, so I think I get what you mean!

    Why not turn it into a free software package, like “linux”, for example?

    Oh – the books-software is just great – thank you Ron Unz!

  36. Lot says:

    “a prolific commenter”

    Your kind choice of words when so many synonyms were available is noted and appreciated.

    I have also noticed the load page has slowed down compared to a few months ago, but is such a minor issue I wouldn’t complain.

    It might have something to do with responses to comments being part of the comments archive too. If the average comment has .5 responses, this would increase the amount of text loaded by about half.

    This is a very nice new feature and worth an extra few seconds wait.

  37. Randal says:

    Robin G and a few others appear to be discussing political action a fair bit on this thread;

    Hawks Resurgent in Washington

  38. Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:

    It may be worthwhile to clarify this in your site info. (BTW I’m not the same 340 as the other 340)

    Perhaps an alternate approach would be to provide the anons with thread*-specific IDs? So that instead of #291 for instance I would be, say, Anon[4], being the fourth (or so, I haven’t counted) anonymous commenter on the thread.

    If the hashing problem is resolved that makes the three-digit identifiers not unique (if this is even viewed as a problem) it makes the “disclaimer” somewhat unnecessary, I should think.

    *thread: I mean, this comment page. Maybe “article” would be a better word.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @Elsewhere
  39. RobinG says:

    Here’s hoping Ron ignores your bleating.

    • Replies: @Anon
  40. Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:

    Bleating in what sense? I discussed a problem pointed out by another commenter (three-digit identifiers are apparently not unique) and put forward another idea for discussion.

    I don’t see that anything I said, or anything in my tone, merits this sort of vitriol. If you think I am wrong, perhaps you could disagree in a civil manner.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  41. RobinG says:

    Sorry if I’ve misread.

    Other anons are chafing and grumbling. My assumption from 340’s post was that more than one person wrote from that IP address. [This happens, such as when Sam Shama’s computer was used by his nephew.] You’re saying the fault is with Ron’s software? Seems less likely to me.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  42. Elsewhere says:

    This would be my preferred solution.

  43. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    As it seems important to you:

    1. I posted only ## 15 and 18 above.

    2. I have no relationship to the other “[340].”

    And I, too, think that you’re needlessly confrontational and often rude.

  44. The HTML books feature is fantastic, thank you! I look forward to using it to reread old favorites and discover new authors and books, listen to books, share links to specific passages, and who knows what else.

    It’s really nice to have the same tried and tested, clean interface for books as for articles and blog posts. A lot nicer interface than the Gutenberg web site.

    The choice is already magnificent. Some mouth-watering categories, for example:

    Now for some random comments based on a first look, comments, not complaints! about stuff that doesn’t quite work for me. None are very important, but perhaps you might be able to use the feedback.

    1. Here’s a request for the Brothers Karamazov, the only one of Dostoevsky’s major works missing.

    2. I’d like to see a full list of the authors.
    Perhaps here:
    Currently, the best way I can do it is by typing a first letter of an author, 26 times. If there’s a better way, do let me know.

    3. The feature to link or listen to a specific paragraph only works occasionally for me on the iPad, my preferred way to read unz. This comment is not specific to books: I have the same problem with articles.

    The problem is that the paragraph toolbar appears seemingly randomly, usually when I don’t want it and I’m just scrolling around or copy/pasting something. And when I do want it, I usually can’t make it appear, all I can do is get a brief flash for that paragraph when I tap it.

    By the way, a suggestion: since the activation of those paragraph features can be a bit intrusive, perhaps you might consider making the activation clickable only on one side of the page, in the margin. It might be less distracting or confusing at times when people don’t need that feature.

    4. The Listen feature doesn’t quite work for me. It only reads the first part of a text. Sometimes that first part is just the opening quotation, as here:

    Other times it reads a big part of the text, but stops at the first quotation, as it does here:

    Also the Listen controls are a little small, it’s easy to press “stop” instead of “pause”.

    5. It would be nice to be able to search all an author’s works. But there’s no search button on the author page, and the advanced search does not include book authors in the list of authors.

    I’ll stop with the comments now. Thanks again for a fantastic resource!

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  45. Ron Unz says:

    Thanks for the very kind words, and the excellent list of suggestions and comments. It’s always a very nice feeling when a software developer realizes some people are actually using the things he took quite some time and effort to build.

    I’m actually tied up with some other things right now, but I’ll start considering your list of items as soon as I can.

  46. @Ron Unz

    Glad to help. Just to add to point 3, for what it’s worth I am now able to reliably, if awkwardly, produce the toolbar on the iPad, which appears easily on the PC with a double click.

    On the iPad, if I tap with one finger on the paragraph I want to select, and at the same time do a resize using another finger, then let go, the paragraph is properly selected and the toolbar appears.

    Obviously it’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing. However, I haven’t found a way on the iPad to select a phrase in the text and link to it, which is easily and rather elegantly done on the PC:

    Update on the comment below: I just realized from the “Jump to Top/Bottom of Page” hover text on the arrows (visible on the PC, not the iPad) that they are actually working as designed. So my bad. Still, perhaps signs something like ⤒ ⤓ would be clearer?

    Leaving the comment below for the record of how I was confused, maybe others have been too:

    And just one more small bug I noticed both on iPad and PC: the paragraph toolbar ▲▼ up and down arrows (presumably to go from paragraph to paragraph?) don’t work, instead they go to the beginning or end of the document.

    This may be related to the tiny bug that, in a search, if you click on the “next search item” arrow when at the last item, you are returned to the start of the document.

  47. Anonymous[326] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    With all due respect, I think you have a significant blindspot here.
    Problems can arise if one has an identifiable public persona (even if one is not a celebrity or in any way an overt member of some intellectual or any sort of elite) that can potentially be linked to an anonymous persona. Anyone offering serious and thoughtful comments on a site like this is going to progressively reveal personal information, information that can cumulatively enable individual identification by someone familiar with the public persona.

    indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  48. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I’ve never heard a single case of a non-ultra-high-profile person (e.g. a big celebrities or a mass-shooter) ever having had his anonymous website comments used to identify him. But I suppose there’s always a first time.

    However, the ID# listed next to Anonymous is just a partial hash of your IP, so someone would need to go to an *enormous* amount of trouble to locate all the Anonymous comments with that particular ID.

    Meanwhile, if you’re so extremely paranoid, why not just occasionally change your IP, which automatically changes the ID…

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @RobinG
  49. RobinG says:
    @Ron Unz

    A[326]’s argument is based on logical fallacy. There is absolutely no reason to “progressively reveal personal information.” Only a lack of self control and imagination could bring one to that conclusion.

    On another subject, you wrote that a good first step [politically] would be to discredit the MSM press. Well, that is happening, but independent views continue to be marginalized, ridiculed, and stigmatized as “anti-American.”

    If you have any ideas on how to use the Sinclair Broadcasting “PSA” to our advantage (i.e. alternative media), please share your insights. Because the dissonance, rather than bringing better analysis [by consumers] of all reporting, is causing a doubling down of polarization and a tenacious clinging to bankrupt memes.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  50. RobinG says:
    @Ron Unz

    In case anyone wonders what I’m talking about —
    American Pravda: Breaching the Media Barrier

  51. Talha says:

    Mr. Unz – a suggestion. I have been watching this guys’ videos for a bit – he has great stuff out there on so many things related to genetics, origins of people, racial admixtures, etc.

    And he presents thing is a very thorough and academic way. He would be a great addition to the video section.

    And might be great for a couple of articles!

    Keep up the great work and the Anonymous ID tracking is a great feature and a nice balance to the issue!


  52. Anonymous[326] • Disclaimer says:

    My argument is certainly not based on a logical fallacy (even if I grant, as I certainly do, that there may be strong counterarguments). Indeed, active use of imagination and self-control will progressively reveal personal information, contrary to your claim. If I am giving my best effort to employ my intellect and my knowledge to provide insightful commentary on the articles, I will be drawing on the full range of my experience as a living human. For instance, suppose that after a fractious time in high school, I earned a degree at a somewhat selective liberal arts colllege, did a stint in the Peace Corps, and then enrolled in the economics program at Princeton, earning a PhD. My posts here would likely reveal some of this, over time. (I am not actually describing myself.) In reality, I probably have several hundred comments here (some under a profile, and some as Anonymous), and many of the better ones do reveal something about me personally, even if there is also reasoning involved. On at least one occasion, someone has even replied to my Anonymous comment, accurately recognizing me from prior comments.

    • Agree: European-American
    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @utu
  53. RobinG says:

    LOL. It’s your choice to tell stories about yourself.

    “….accurately recognizing me from prior comments.” Do you mean, recognizing you as the same anonymous poster? So What? Anyhow, anecdotes are the poorest form of evidence, if you were making an argument that way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  54. Anonymous[326] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes to your question.

    On a more substantive level, the dismissal of so-called “anecdote” is very often misguided. If you are trying to do statistics, then yes, anecdote is not the way to go (even if it might often provide clues as to why the statistics lie…). But if you are trying to understand reality, then statistics are no more than second-rate: the best thing is observation, coupled with reflection on what you observe. At best, statistics serve to overcome the limitations of your own observations. In that sense they are very useful. But if you are trying to do statistics in a way that is not grounded in your own lived experience, then you are liable to end up believing some stuff that is quite loony and false.

    To a considerable extent, the authoritarian left has exploited the idea of the “situated” character of human experience. But they are not wrong (even if I disagree with how they use this idea). Much of what Steve Sailer writes, for instance, hinges on “noticing” things from a certain “situatedness” that gets disparaged by those in power.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  55. RobinG says:

    “Yes to your question.”

    That settles it. Nobody identified [you].

  56. FKA Max says:
    @Ron Unz

    Mr. Unz,

    all commenters’ archives seem to be down at the moment:

    We’re sorry. That page could not be found.

    Congratulations on the increasing web traffic to your site, impressive and encouraging:

    Finally, partly due to the full incorporation of the separate PDF content archives, our website’s April traffic completely smashed all previous records, easily exceeding 2.7 million total pageviews. According to, our total traffic ranking is now regularly 30% higher than The American Conservative and 20% above CounterPunch, a remarkable achievement for a relatively young website run on an absolute shoestring, providing alternative media coverage that completely crosses all ideological lines.

  57. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    I realize that no one may ever read this late comment, but it seems worthwhile to note that Taki’s apparently has abandoned commenting other than through old school letters to the editor.

    If he wants to maintain the current, high level of comments here, Mr. Unz may need to consider banning and/or screening commenters who, I repeat, otherwise inevitably degrade any website.

  58. Ron,

    A couple issues have emerged over the past few months.

    1) Clicking on a commenter produces a “sorry, page doesn’t exist” page instead of comment history. I don’t like it, it makes it more difficult to make sense of new commenters (new means ones I didn’t know before), or identify stupid or troll commenters, so wastes our time.

    2) Next to the “reply” and “agree/disagree/etc.” buttons there are three more buttons. On my iPhone 7 (always latest iOS, Safari) it’s just a “more” button. However, since the last website crash (I think maybe six months or more ago?) it just disappears if I tap on it. So it’s not working. I thought it’d eventually be restored, but apparently you’re unaware of it.

    Thanks for your wonderful website!
    reiner Tor

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  59. Ron Unz says:
    @reiner Tor

    As I’d mentioned in a couple of comments, we were hit by an exceptionally large bot-wave starting late Sunday night, and for almost eight hours the website was either extremely sluggish or completely offline. Early Monday morning we put up some temporarily solutions to the problem, but this involved blocking out all the /comments/ pages and various others.

    Over the last couple of days I’ve built some powerful new defenses which I’m just about to implement on the server. Once those are active, the /comments/ pages and the others will be reactivated. My apologies for the inconvenience, and it sounds like you may not have even been aware of the very severe outage, which is encouraging.

    My apologies for the convenience, and when I have a chance I’ll also take a look at that other problem you mentions.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @HogHappenin
  60. @Ron Unz

    I noticed something, but I was so absorbed in Hungarian politics on the day that I immediately forgot it.

    Also, sorry for writing to you without reading the previous comments, I should’ve done that.

    Have a nice day, hopefully without a world war!

  61. A new issue just surfaced: it’s impossible now to list articles by author. Neither the columnists nor the bloggers, though the blogs have the blog view. I just don’t like it because I have to scroll through the actual articles which I have already read them, and am only coming back to check out the comments.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  62. Ron Unz says:
    @reiner Tor

    A new issue just surfaced: it’s impossible now to list articles by author. Neither the columnists nor the bloggers, though the blogs have the blog view.

    That’s now fixed. Also, all of the /topic/, /category/, and /source/ filters have now been reactivated. With luck, everything will again be fully operational by later today.

    • Replies: @Pro Bono
  63. utu says:

    If I am giving my best effort to employ my intellect and my knowledge to provide insightful commentary on the articles

    Could you give an example of an insightful comment of yours? I would like to know what is at stake and how much loss we are facing if you quit.

    • Replies: @European-American
  64. @utu

    Sorry this came out a bit long… tldr:
    I thought Anon made a good point that as much anonymity as possible is good.

    I liked Anonymous[326]’s initial comment:

    Anyone offering serious and thoughtful comments on a site like this is going to progressively reveal personal information, information that can cumulatively enable individual identification

    There’s a difference between anonymous and pseudonymous. If people are identified over a certain period of time by a number (related to their relatively unchanging IP address), then they are not anonymous, just hidden behind a pseudonym, and the set of their comments may gradually identify who they are, for someone who knows them.

    So imagine an eager beaver SJW, who for some reason is on the site, notices a comment that seems familiar. It sounds like a friend or a neighbor or a colleague. By checking earlier comments, he may be able to confirm with reasonable certainty that he knows the commenter. Good-bye anonymity!

    Or imagine an eager beaver SJW AI doing the same thing, exhaustively, for all comments on all blogs and other content on the Internet. It shouldn’t be that hard to identify some people. We have created an environment where what would be considered sophisticated spying techniques can be used cheaply on anyone.

    I’m pretty sure some people or softwares could easily identify who I am based on my commenting history. And I’m well aware that’s the (foolish?) risk I take with my pseudonym.

    But it would be nice to keep an option to comment in as anonymous a way as possible. I personally like the idea of a unique ID per thread, for convenience in discussion. Or maybe a unique ID for a week. But anyway I’ll admit so far I personally (foolishly?) haven’t yet much felt the need for posting anonymously.

    It sometimes seems Ron Unz doesn’t have much sympathy for these concerns, and I can think of a few reasons why.

    I do understand it’s easier to detect and prevent bad behavior if there is less than complete anonymity. There’s always this trade-off between liberty and security… But anyway from the server point of view there is much less anonymity, so some forms of bad behavior can be prevented on the server side without sacrificing anonymity vis-à-vis to the outside world.

    Also, as I’ve commented before , Ron surprisingly doesn’t mind by default putting the Facebook and Twitter buttons on every page of his site. It seems to me that unnecessarily helps those companies track their users, in another way that anonymity on this site can be illusory.

    But I’m also guessing that Ron, having long been brave in publicly hosting all sorts of “problematic” content under his own name, is not as sensitive as he might be to the wish of many cowardly, insignificant commenters to stay hidden.

    Still, I do not look forward to the perhaps inevitable day when someone will produce my “Internet report card” and identify me as “questionable” due to evidence of my browsing and commenting habits, so I understand that some want to try to remain as anonymous as possible.

    PS: OK and in further defense of Anonymous[326] I’ll admit to not minding that he forced me to look up an obscure (to me) Latin phrase:

  65. @Ron Unz

    Greetings Mr. Editor!

    You maintain a pretty fine webzine and you allow for true FoS on this webzine! Our “elites” don’t like that and I’m sure you must have come under the ever expanding range of their “radar”

    I hope you can come out stronger every time “they” try to take your superb site down!

  66. Svigor says:

    This oughta be fun:

    Bias in journalism is nothing new, but there are growing concerns technology is pushing us into echo chambers where we only hear one side of the story. Now a startup says it’s using AI to bring us a truly impartial source of news.

    Knowhere launched earlier this month, alongside an announcement that it had raised $1.8 million in venture capital. The site uses AI to aggregate news from hundreds of sources and create three versions of each story: one skewed to the left, one skewed to the right, and one that’s meant to be impartial.

    Prediction: it will be impartial for about five minutes, then the leftist fanatics will force them to rewrite all three versions to be skewed to the left.

  67. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    The last look, five minute opportunity to edit comments is only working intermittently.

    It works here, but didn’t for another comment I submitted to a Napolitano column this morning.

  68. Greetings Ron,

    With the latest changes to the website, after the page loads some post processing is done – through javascript ? – to apply CSS styling.

    For whatever reason, the pages for me no longer render properly, I am using ‘noscript’ plugin and Firefox.

    Thank you for all of you good works.

  69. Pro Bono says:
    @Ron Unz


    Thank you for these enhancements.

    Could you look at this page:

    “Chapter 2 • The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why Have Otherwise Rational Journalists Endorsed Miracles”

    Search for
    “Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:”

    I am seeing a very large chuck of “quoted” text that had been shown above.

    [A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]


    6. Horizontal Ejections from the Twin Towers

    Dwain Deets,

    This happens a second time, search for:
    “fed and spread by jet fuel from the planes; and (iii) gravity. Neither explosives nor incendiaries helped bring the buildings down. Internationally known architect David A. Johnson has written:”

    There follows another long quoted section, which repeats the above:

    Dwain Deets, former director of the research engineering division at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center,

    It appears as if the parser needs to be changed.


Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Personal Classics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?