The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Announcements
Gaining Ground on The New Republic, The Nation, and Foreign Policy
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
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

At the end of November, I noted the remarkable increase in the readership of our webzine over the last couple of years, especially when compared with that of its competitors, both in the alternative and the more establishment opinion media. Three months later, I’m now pleased to say that these trends seem to have continued or even somewhat accelerated, particularly in the last month or so, with our publication easily breaking all-time traffic records for the last two weeks in a row.

Even back in November, our Alexa traffic rankings had placed us well above—in most cases far, far above—the overwhelming majority of alternative media publications despite our relatively recent appearance on the scene and our shoestring operation, together with the regular mistreatment we receive from Social Media giants such as Facebook and Twitter.

Leftwing Counterpunch was founded a quarter century ago and at the beginning of 2017 had nearly twice our traffic, but now our readership is 60% greater. The American Conservative is nearly two decades old, and in the last three years, our traffic rank has grown by over 50%, allowing us to easily overtake it. Founded a dozen years ago, rightwing Takimag still drew a somewhat larger audience in early 2017, but our relative traffic has grown by over 200% since then, and our current traffic is nearly three times as large as that other publication. Our relative performance over the last three years against these fairly prominent alternative media publications is illustrated by the following chart.

Despite numerous skeptics, I think we have proven that there really does seem to be a substantial audience for a publication providing a convenient home to both the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right, joint access to ideological extremists, conspiracy theorists, racialists, historical revisionists, and other miscellaneous malcontents, all the sorts of agitated and conflicting voices which would never be allowed within the ever-narrowing confines of our “legitimate media.”

Moreover, I think the case for the success of our “open door” approach is considerably strengthened by the counterexamples of certain other publications.

For example, just in the last two years Counterpunch, once a mighty voice on the Alternative Left, has purged a very substantial number of its longtime writers who have always fallen outside the left-liberal mainstream, including Israel Shamir, Paul Craig Roberts, Mike Whitney, Diana Johnstone, Linh Dinh, C.J. Hopkins, and Andre Vltchek. These ongoing Counterpunch purges have not gone unnoticed among its former readership, and just a few days ago, the latest instance sparked an accusatory article and a couple of hundred angry comments on a website.

Given this unfortunate situation, we should not be too surprised that Counterpunch‘s Alexa traffic rank has plummeted by nearly 60% during this same period. After all, when nearly all the writers of a publication are required to conform to the ideological boundaries of The Nation, Mother Jones, and these days perhaps even the august New York Times, those vastly more powerful media organs begin to draw off more and more readers.

 

Although I have been encouraged by our gradual movement towards the top of the universe of alternative media publications, even more heartening—and remarkable—has been the tremendous amount of ground we have gained against some of America’s most venerable and prestigious mainstream publications, whose roots often stretch back a century or more.

For many decades, The New Republic had regularly been seen as one of America’s most influential opinion magazines and at the beginning of 2016 its traffic rank was over 350% higher than our own, giving us just a small slice of TNR‘s readership. But over the last three years, our traffic has nearly doubled and theirs has dropped by almost half, so today their readership is less than 30% larger, an astonishing state of affairs.

Founded a half-century ago, Foreign Policy has long been one of our most prestigious foreign affairs periodicals, a pillar of the elite establishment. Its very popular website boasts a host of prestigious “name” columnists and it describes itself as “the Global Magazine of News and Ideas.” Early in 2016, its readership rank was almost six times higher than ours. But its fall in traffic has been even greater than that of The New Republic, and today we have nearly two-thirds its traffic.

America’s oldest publication and the perennial mainstay of the liberal-left has been The Nation, and three years ago it also had nearly six times our traffic rank. But it has also followed the same downward trajectory as TNR, and its advantage is now merely 30%.

From its founding a half century ago, Reason has always been the most influential libertarian periodical and the technological orientation of its community established it as an early and powerful presence on the Internet. During the early months of 2016, it also had nearly six times our readership and although its decline has not been nearly as precipitous as those other publications, our publication now has over half its readership.

For decades, Commentary served as the flagship of the Neoconservative intellectual movement, and twenty years ago I was enormously gratified when it ran my own article as its cover story and made it the centerpiece of its annual fund-raising letter. Near the beginning of 2017, its readership was still significantly larger than ours, but today our traffic is 400% higher.

These comparative trends over the last three years may easily be displayed in graphical form. A casual examination suggests that it is not entirely impossible that within another year or so, our quite young alternative webzine, operating on a mere shoestring, may have moved past one or more of the most prestigious and influential publications that have so long dominated the American intellectual landscape.

Ironically enough, our website also contains the older PDF archives of several of those famous periodicals, though much of the material is unavailable for reading due to copyright restrictions.

 

ORDER IT NOW

I suspect that the clear success of our opinion webzine is only partly due to its own merits and instead heavily depends upon the remarkable failures of so many of its competitors. The classic fable of the one-eyed man in the country of the blind comes to mind.

Following the 2008 Financial Bailout and the early years of the Obama Administration, the neoliberal and neoconservative movements began merging together into a single ideological establishment, representing unified orthodoxy on both economic and foreign policy issues and thereby gradually pulling most established publications of the Left and the Right into their camp. During the 2016 presidential race, it was widely anticipated that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would be the contending nominees, fiercely battling each other on hot-button partisan issues while quietly standing together on War, Peace, and the Economy. Such a race would surely have been soporific and vacuous to the vast majority of the general public. The sudden and totally unexpected populist rise of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump fractured this projected narrative, and Trump’s election shredded it.

Although the most extreme Neocon elements soon regained control over the foreign policy of the Trump Administration, American’s ruling ideological establishment was horrified by the close call they had suffered, and began an unprecedented attack upon the Internet and dissident publications and writers, with mass bannings, harsh censorship, and widespread “de-platforming.” The most utterly ridiculous accusations—suggesting that Ron Paul was a Russian agent of influence—soon began echoing within the corporate media, and many alternative websites were cowed into trimming their dissenting sails lest they suffer severe consequences.

Many critics were jubilant over the recent closure of The Weekly Standard, the Neocon organ most heavily responsible for the disastrous Iraq War, they have misunderstood the reality of the situation. With so many similar Neocon ideologues now firmly ensconced on the editorial pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and every other major newspaper, Bill Kristol’s former publication no longer had any real role to play. I think a case can be made that with the exception of a few zealous Trump partisans here and there, the establishmentarian American media landscape is more totally unified than it has been for decades, especially with regard to foreign policy issues, and dissenting voices never so unwelcome.

When a country’s ruling elites are highly unified but fearful of maintaining their continuing power in the face of popular discontent, harsh crackdowns are a natural consequence, and America’s widely enshrined First Amendment liberties are now being increasingly circumvented on the Internet by utilizing the corporate monopolies that control that means of communication. During the 1950s, any proposal to ban suspected Communists from making telephone calls, watching television, or having bank accounts would have been ridiculed as utter lunacy, but in today’s America, equivalent actions are steadily growing more frequent and more severe.

With so many vibrant alternative publications having been brought into line and so many once raucous comment sections now strictly policed by strict identity registration requirements or eliminated completely, our webzine has gradually become a much bigger fish in the rapidly shrinking pond of free thought on the Internet.

We shall see whether the angry flapping of our contributing writers achieves any result before the “Powers That Be” complete their total evaporation of all remaining intellectual freedom in the Western world.

 
Hide 152 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. dvorak says:

    it ran my own article as its cover story and made it the centerpiece of its annual fund-raising letter

    Commentary made a fundraising centerpiece out of “The End of White America”? Fascinating.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
    , @Bill Jones
  2. Congratulations on the audience growth that the Unz Review has been enjoying. I check in every day and much of my online reading happens here. Most of my online commenting also happens here, but not at a volume that usually qualifies me to leave “LOL” or “Agree” posts. Any chance you can trim those requirements down to allow me more laughing or agreeing?

    However, I wonder how much your celebration of UR’s growth vs opinion competitors is comparing apples and oranges. The New Republic, the Nation, Commentary, and Foreign Policy have all been traditional print media, with their websites being, arguably, secondary to their print versions. The American Conservative also was founded as primarily print-based, but it has gained its biggest audience by running a frequently updated website with popular columnists. The same may be true for The National Review.

    I’d be most interested in a comparison between UR’s audience growth and that of other purely online-based opinion sites such as Vox, Huffington Post, Antiwar.com, or Politico. It could be argued that The New Republic has been going through a major upheaval, which would, on its own, shrink its audience. Commentary‘s heyday is long past. Reason has had substantial website policy turnover that has clobbered it’s commenting followers. I think the appeal of Counterpunch dropped considerably with the death of Alexander Cockburn.

    My point is that a good number of the opinion leader sites that you are using for traffic comparisons to UR have had their own editorial crises which might account for some of their audience shrinkage. Even Takimag has no doubt taken audience hits when they put comments behind paywalls.

    And then there is always the factor that UR serves, to some degree, as a Reader’s Digest of alt-opinion sites. I go to VDate less often than I used to, since I can read John Derbyshire at UR. Same goes for other sites that UR draws upon. It might be possible that you are just cannibalizing the readers from some of these others sites that you reprint from. Personally, I appreciate the convenience of finding so much alt-material available at UR, as it saves me the bother of bouncing around to all these other sites. But that may come at a cost of audience numbers for those other sites.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Hail
  3. The most precious fact concerning the UNZ Review is, that all kinds of mistakes are possible here. – To accept the ontological state of the human spirit means to accept – and to embrace, even – failure (I said that – but I would not have said that without John Searle, Heidegger, Ernst Bloch, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Habermas and Wittgenstein and Hegel).

    That said: Good luck to Ron Unz – and his readership. – – -I’m really glad, that unz.com exists – and flourishes.

  4. AmRusDebate says: • Website

    Congratulations Mr. Unz,

    Great news indeed.

    Your comments section is part of the success.

    I hope you set your ambitions higher.

    There is more to be done. Far more. Consolidation and then some.

    I question the need for the existence of an independent Antiwar blog, considering as it has tremendous problems raising money, and that its change of guard augurs quality decline. Same goes for Taki’s mag.

    Ideally, you could imitate the success of Vice, while maintain your core-commitment to freedom of expression and eschewing selling-out (as Rebel Media, and its vast network have from day one)

    . I also suggest taking over Gab, and or pumping money into a gab like messaging/social media app. Torba is doing an ok job, but clearly lacks the means to improve his platform and take it further.

    Really, even these are modest goals.

    One could also envision multi-lingual platforms. Aiming to supplant Breitbart in the long-term.

    Just ideas, and encouragement!

    In case anyone accuse me of brown-nosing – I have no skin in the game – other than appreciating a forum where Atzmon, Shamir, Mercer, Gottfried, Linh Dinh, Giraldi, and Company can all be accessed at once, and appreciating the solid commitment to freedom without the obnoxious fund-raising schemes.

    I sometimes gripe about the websites usability…although it has many advantages that I can understand (i.e. intermingling “new” articles with old), broadsheet format, sometimes I wish there was one simple section for new articles. In this sense I prefer antiwar.

    Regarding comments about other magazines/webzines. Counter-punch used to have a print edition, still might. We don’t know about those numbers. Nor am I aware of how they were financed, since I don’t recall any fundraising drives (wrong?). For the most part, Unz is read by what can loosely be termed the “Alt-Right” more so than any “Alt-left” unless the two mean the same thing. I think that is the core audience here. It’s not clear what “Alt Right” means but let’s just say its the more skeptical than average reader, who does a lot of independent thinking, tends to be White or Whitish and frustrated with the bullshit served everywhere else on a spectrum of issues where bullshit rules the day. It’s a DailyStormer but for the tie and briefcase types.

    I would stay away from the conspiracy peddlers, since it mixes poorly with the more empirically based epigone/sailer/karlin approach, and frankly, the Kevin Barrets and Father Nathaniel are simply kooks. In that case you may as well make deals with Rogan, Jones, and Breitbart. Nutters whose agendas (through the purse-strings) are excessively biased, to the point of doing a disservice to common sense.

    One last suggestion once you really conquer a larger market share from audiences who don’t know you so far, a genuine science section + genuine cultural section.

    • Disagree: apollonian, Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    , @Tsigantes
  5. But do you have a back up plan in case they come for the Unz review?

  6. It’s a pity, Ron, that your present article describes your site as “a publication providing a convenient home to both the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right, joint access to ideological extremists, conspiracy theorists, racialists, historical revisionists, and other miscellaneous malcontents” instead of as having higher quality-standards than those less-successful sites do, but that’s sadly an accurate description of your site. At least you were honest there. And you also are honest about the description you provided here of your writers — not as higher quality or as more truthful and having at each contentious allegation a link to top quality documentation, but instead as “the angry flapping of our contributing writers.”

    I think that your success is actually mainly the result of your software (which I’ve not seen used anywhere else) for reader-comments. It is simply the best anywhere; and, if you created it, then that’s a strong credit to you as a programmer. It is too bad that you as an editorial gateway — as a submissions-editor — are not good, and thus now totally ban me as a writer, simply because I am disgusted at your site’s orientation favoring various bigotries (which constitute a large portion of “the angry flapping of our contributing writers”) and your site’s indiscriminateness as regards the quality of what you publish (some of which is good but much of which is bad or even very poor).

    I would regularly read your site if it didn’t include so much trash — and by that I refer not to things that I disagree with but things that simply aren’t true, and a great deal that’s poorly reasoned and that includes lots of unexamined assumptions. Your site isn’t written for open-minded intelligent people but instead for people who simply are attracted to “the angry flapping of our contributing writers.”

  7. On Feb. 17 at the United Center in Chicago, before a cheering crowd of black Muslims numbered in the thousands — and who knows how many viewing around the world via webcast — this writer lauded the Nation of Islam’s three volume “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews” as “magisterial revisionist history.”

    Nine days later, on February 26, after having been offered for sale on Amazon for several years, these three books were suddenly banned for “violating content guidelines,” an apparent euphemism for offending the Holy People. Coincidence?

    Until such time as alternatives to Amazon (and independent libertarian platforms for podcasting) are created, the Tech Tyranny, as Mr. Unz indicates, will march on amid the stark media silence on censorship of history books which Zionists and Talmudists detest. This is indeed a sinister Orwellian state of affairs. Public exposure of the book-banning and the hypocrisy that informs it, is essential.

    Jeff Bezos, who founded and owns a controlling stake in Amazon, also owns the Washington Post whose motto, flaunted in a virtue-signaling 2019 Superbowl commercial, is “Democracy Dies in Darkness” — the same darkness in which the Nation of Islam’s history of Judaic control of the black slave trade in the western hemisphere, has been consigned.

    • Agree: Iris, Wally
    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
    , @m___
  8. Ron Unz says:
    @Laugh Track

    However, I wonder how much your celebration of UR’s growth vs opinion competitors is comparing apples and oranges…I’d be most interested in a comparison between UR’s audience growth and that of other purely online-based opinion sites such as Vox, Huffington Post, Antiwar.com, or Politico.

    Actually, the link I provided to my previous discussion of traffic trends listed the figures for several dozen (mostly Alt-Media) websites, which provide exactly that sort of Apples-to-Apples comparison, and we’ve gained an enormous amount of ground against most of them during the last three years:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/major-progress-amid-media-purges/

    In Jan 2016, we were towards the middle of the list, and now we’ve much closer to the top. In one of the particular comparisons you suggest, we were well below Antiwar.com back then, and today our traffic is nearly three times greater.

    Similarly, I’d be extremely heartened if we eventually manage to overtake such storied publications as TNR, The Nation, or Foreign Policy, especially given their vastly larger staffs and budgets.

    However, we are obviously not even *remotely* in the league of such publications as Vox or Politico, whose traffic rank is 20x or 30x larger than ours. On the other hand, those publications have full-time staffs of 500 or 1000 employees, which is, ahem, a bit larger than us. But then again, most of those publications are also highly unprofitable, losing oceans of money and survive only due to their venture-capital funding. Thousands of such webzine journalists were recently laid off, and if these trends continue, many of them may eventually go out of business, in which case our own website will surely pick up some of the erstwhile readers.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  9. For those of us who are distressed by the mainstream media, marching ever more closely in leftist lockstep with each other and now dying in darkness, Unz.com is a Godsend. Best of luck to you and please … don’t sell out like Pajamas Media and Breitbart.

    • Replies: @Wally
  10. David says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    I’m sure everyone here misses your reading Ron’s site as much as I do.

  11. Ron, your editorial policy really reminds me of Allen Weiner, owner of shortwave station WBCQ, who’s such a free speech absolutist that he allows Christian Identity ministries equal access to purchasing air time.

    • Replies: @Wally
  12. Congratulations. I’ve visited over the years because of Michael Hoffman.

  13. @AmRusDebate

    Your expression market share might not be that useful in the context of the UNZ REVIEW.

    Ahh – science – and what abut a philosophy and a sociology section? – Wouldn’t those be nice to have too?

  14. It will not be long before you look back on now as the good old days.

    Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

  15. DFH says:

    Congratulations to Mr. Unz

  16. This remarkable divergence in trend is a credit to the quality of work put in here day in and day out. Sailer, Karlin, Reed, Giraldi, Durocher, Mercer, Buchanan, Derbyshire, Dinh…..in my judgement Unz has assembled here the most formidable, awe-inspiring lineup that the world has seen since the 1927 Yankees. Truly an embarrassment of riches, and all the more remarkable in that Ron has done it on a shoestring budget.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
    , @m___
  17. gsjackson says:
    @dvorak

    Not really. One of the articles that brought Norman Podhoretz to prominence in the ’60s was titled something like My Negro Problem and Yours. Coming today from anyone who could be remotely connected to Trump, Poddy’s thoughts would be a corporate media hobby horse for years. Making racial distinctions is not treading on neocon turf — far from it — unless you start talking about Talmudic Jews or some such.

  18. gsjackson says:
    @John Achterhof

    Agreed. It’s a fine lineup of writers — the first place I look in for commentary — and that includes some of the commenters. Maybe could use a little affirmative action for the Q voice — just on the off chance that Trump actually is playing 4D chess and trying to save the world from the Cabal/Fiend/Empire/ etc.

  19. Anonymous[109] • Disclaimer says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    I would regularly read your site if it didn’t include so much trash

    That’s such a phony appeal to “respectability”. You want him to censor articles you wouldn’t even read because their mere existence triggers you. If only he could restrict the wrongthink of others you’d be fully onboard, right?

    Cost: plummeting rankings.
    Benefit: an approving nod from one Eric Zuesse.

    open-minded intelligent people

    Lol!

    • Agree: apollonian
  20. Congrats RU. I believe you are correct about the diverse views of the writers and how most of them would not be welcomed in mainstream media. It also shows how popular these views are and certainly explains why the ruling elite are working overtime to silence or discredit any alternative sites.

    • Agree: densa, republic
  21. SND says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    Hi Eric Zuesse! I’ve long wanted to thank you for introducing me to Michael Praetorius (on your phonograph) in your dorm room in late, lamented Pierce Tower in 1964. Did me a lot of good. I now benefit from reading your pieces at Strategic Culture. They are very “well researched.” Of course, the basic orientation of the UC student back then was the ultimate virtue of snobbery. It’s kind of sad but not surprising that Unz is too disreputable for you to publish in now.

    The amazing thing to me about what Ron Unz has done is that his website, unlike Strategic Culture, is consistently so much fun to read. It is precisely for “open-minded intelligent people,” but ones with some degree of sense of humor & feeling for irony. For instance, without a well developed sense of irony the JQ can be simply incomprehensible, as apparently it is to you.

    So keep dancing that Terpsichore, Eric. It’s a little stiff now, but some day you just might let it go & loosen up. Then, come on back to Unz. We’ll still be here laughing & trying to figure things out.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  22. RJJCDA says:

    Kudos, Sir. A must read for me to catch alternative interpretations of events.

  23. Ironically enough, our website also contains the older PDF archives of several of those famous periodicals….

    I was going to ask what proportion of this site’s traffic is directed to your archive of books and periodicals rather than what might be termed current content. How much of the growth in readership can be attributed to this?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  24. @Michael Hoffman

    On Feb. 17 at the United Center in Chicago, before a cheering crowd of black Muslims numbered in the thousands — and who knows how many viewing around the world via webcast — this writer lauded the Nation of Islam’s three volume “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews” as “magisterial revisionist history.”

    Ron Unz has highly praised the third book in this series, about the Leo Frank case. In your report of the NOI conference, you mentioned that you were on good terms with one or more members of the NOI’s Historical Research Department. I was wondering if you knew anything about who authored that third volume. I’m not expecting names, of course!

    • Replies: @republic
  25. Ron Unz says:
    @Henry's Cat

    I was going to ask what proportion of this site’s traffic is directed to your archive of books and periodicals rather than what might be termed current content. How much of the growth in readership can be attributed to this?

    Well, as some of you may be aware, I devoted most of the 2000s to that huge content-archiving project, which provides access to a million or more readable books and articles from hundreds of America’s most influential opinion publications of the last 150 years, an almost unique source of the ideas that shaped our society. Since that period, I’ve probably spent the better part of another year enhancing, updating, and merging that system.

    I’ve subsequently discovered that some of America’s oldest and most prestigious publications do not have convenient access to their own archives, and use my website instead to locate their old articles.

    Meanwhile, I’ve probably spent not much more than 10% of that time commitment building the rest of this website and serving as publisher of The Unz Review.

    But the gigantic content-archiving system gets a little more than 3% of our current traffic.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  26. You lament ‘the regular mistreatment we receive from Social Media giants such as Facebook and Twitter’. What form does this take?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  27. TSOL says:

    Ron, Kudos –And please add “Dig Within”, Kevin Ryan’s blog if you can Cheers

  28. @Eric Zuesse

    I disagree, and, actually and not casually, your comment shares a lot of verbiage with the commenters and Unz Review contributors you express your disdain for.

    The site has grown in popularity because an array of things that are available for reading in no respectable place were written and published very respectably right on it.
    The site, for the very reason that it doesn’t do what you believe it does, will never go beyond a rather limited traffic amount and become a mass magazine. It is not its concern to, obviously and luckily.

  29. republic says:
    @Henry's Cat

    “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews”

    is not available in Canada and Amazon does not sell any of the 3 volumes

    Volume one is available at gen.lib.rus.es

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  30. …even more heartening—and remarkable—has been the tremendous amount of ground we have gained against some of America’s most venerable and prestigious mainstream publications…

    Guess what? Maybe they ain’t so “mainstream” after all, and maybe we should stop legitimizing them with that term. “Mass media” is a perfectly fine term and has a fine and well deserved tone of denigration, so where’s the beef about using it?

    Call ’em what they are, not what they’re not.

  31. @Eric Zuesse

    And you also are honest about the description you provided here of your writers — not as higher quality or as more truthful and having at each contentious allegation a link to top quality documentation, but instead as “the angry flapping of our contributing writers.”

    While I won’t pretend I admire all writers here equally (the sentiment will, of course, be mutual), talking of “angry flapping“:

    First sentence of your last article: “In 2003, America (and its lap-dog UK) invaded and destroyed Iraq on the basis of lies to the effect that the U.S. (and UK) regime were certain that Saddam Hussein had and was developing weapons of mass destruction.

    First sentence of your third to last article: “Today’s Axis (the fascist powers) are the heirs of Hitler’s failed Operation Barbarossa to conquer the Soviet Union.

    Dude, this isn’t how handshakeworthy people write. Do you really want to poke holes in your own boat?

    • Replies: @fenestol
  32. From strength to strength. This is great news. Free speech and open inquiry are not dead. They are thriving here at UR.

    • Disagree: apollonian
  33. onebornfree says: • Website

    Of course, we’ll all know you are a really serious threat to the MSM scumbags, and “over the target”, when you get banned, [or “shadow banned” perhaps] from places such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Paypal etc. etc., and your bank accounts are all mysteriously closed, to boot. 🙁

    On the plus side, if that were to happen, and if the Alex Jones example is anything to go by , that would further increase readership! 🙂

    So, a win either way?

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: apollonian
  34. Ron Unz says:
    @Henry's Cat

    You lament ‘the regular mistreatment we receive from Social Media giants such as Facebook and Twitter’. What form does this take?

    With regard to Facebook, I’ve noticed that on some of the most popular and “touchy” articles, the count of Like’s may be reasonably sizable early in the morning, perhaps a couple of hundred, and then when I check back a couple of hours later, the count is down to 7 or 8. So someone at Facebook has checked and obviously “disappeared” all the Like’s. Sometimes a day or two later, the Like count has gotten large again, so maybe Facebook eventually puts back the stolen Like’s after any chance of the article “going viral” has been eliminated. Or maybe those original Likes are gone for good.

    Also, Israel Shamir once said that when he posted one of our articles on his Facebook page, he got a 30-day Facebook suspension. Maybe it was even his own article that he posted.

    Regarding Twitter, I think many, many of our articles are “shadow banned” or maybe people who Tweet out our articles. I remember a few months ago one of our most popular articles was generating enormous incoming traffic from Twitter with very large numbers of Tweets going out linking it. Then, the Tweets kept going out, but all the incoming traffic from Twitter disappeared. Since that time, I’ve noticed very little traffic from Twitter.

    According to Google Analytics, with occasional exceptions we seem to get very, very little traffic via either Twitter or Facebook.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  35. MBlanc46 says:

    Takimag eliminated its comments section. Apparently its readership has declined since. I’ve heard that they added intrusive advertising at about the same time, but I’ve stopped going there, so I don’t know for sure.

    • Replies: @republic
  36. MBlanc46 says:
    @SND

    Pierce Tower! I never lived there, but I lived across the street from it my first year in grad school (1968). Mme B and I still visit the neighborhood several times a year. The monstrous Jeanne Gang towers that replaced it make me miss it even more.

    • Replies: @res
  37. MBlanc46 says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    And your washing up here is an additional strength.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  38. @Eric Zuesse

    “things that simply aren’t true, and a great deal that’s poorly reasoned and that includes lots of unexamined assumptions.”

    We can’t debate airy generalities. What we here on this site like is for the commenter to offer up an example or two to flesh out his argument.

    • Agree: Tsigantes
    • Replies: @David
  39. Len says:

    I’m amazed you’re allowed to run a campaign on Patreon. How’d that happen?

    • Replies: @m___
  40. fenestol says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    this isn’t how handshakeworthy people write

    Written by the man who abbreviates “badassed” as “based”. Stick it up your faggotworthy ass, Karlin.

    • LOL: RobinG
    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  41. Tsigantes says:
    @AmRusDebate

    Vice is owned 50% or more by Murdoch. Vice made the phoney 3 part introduction-to- ISIS videos in the summer of 2014. Vice is garbage.

  42. Erebus says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    It’s a pity, Eric, that as an “investigative historian” you haven’t investigated those troubling…

    … things that simply aren’t true..

    … and publicly set us straight instead of flinging faeces from the sidelines at whoever else is having a go at them. Flinging faeces is the mark the Troll, bound to win you a deep and abiding disrespect from UR readers.

    I am quite certain that avoiding “unexamined assumptions” and “poorly reasoned arguments”, while marshalling facts with closely reasoned arguments will get you a lot more respect from this crowd than you might imagine. Try it some time, especially on positions that you find not just “simply”, but particularly and egregiously “untrue”.

    Had you had the courage to do that, I think you’d find that some of those ain’t as “untrue” as you seem so smugly sure are now.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  43. David says:
    @ThreeCranes

    A good example, in my view, of what Mr Zuesse is complaining about is the “What Race Were the Greeks and Romans,” an article that is essentially a permanent feature of Unz.com homepage but is full of easily falsified statements. It’s there today, near the bottom on the left.

    It is a little disgraceful that Ron would provide a lasting place for such shitty scholarship. Especially since he’s explained that the reason the article is always there is because people search the subject so often, that the complete crap put forth in it is constantly being pushed up in the rankings.

    For a specific example, the author says Homer described the women of Troy as “fair” when the word used is “beautiful.” So he likely read a translation where the word fair was used to translate the word beautiful.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  44. Mike P says:
    @Ron Unz

    But the gigantic content-archiving system gets a little more than 3% of our current traffic.

    Do you see any possibility to make your archived content visible on sites such as archive.org or project Gutenberg? I believe many people would go there first when looking for old stuff (I know I do).

  45. republic says:
    @MBlanc46

    Taki Magazine stopped its comments section one year ago in March 2018. Taki used the third party software Disqus for comments. In December 2017, Disqus was acquired by Zeta global, whose
    CEO is David A. Steinberg.

    Taki magazine had great commenters, some of whom, probably offended, members of the
    Tribe. So,Taki was faced with increased liability problems and decided to get rid of its comment
    Section.

    Zerohedge used to have a great comment section. I understood that it was facing
    Some legal problem due to its Swiss based servers and thus decided to curtail its
    Comment section. Some people believe that it was sold by its original owner from Bulgaria,and
    That its new owner started their new restrictive comment policy.

    Probably both Taki’s and Zerohedge’s commenters skated too close to the true regarding
    Jewish interests.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Trevor H.
  46. Drake says:

    Hello Mr Unz,

    Some new pages have images that won’t load correctly over https, for example the portrait of Gould at the top of this post

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/gould-got-it-wrong/

    The issue is with the srcset attribute which uses http references instead of https.

    One solution is to use relative paths for the srcset links.

    Tested in Firefox.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  47. Ron Unz says:
    @Drake

    Some new pages have images that won’t load correctly over https, for example the portrait of Gould at the top of this post

    That’s odd. It’s all handled by WordPress, and when I tried it in a variety of different modes under Chrome, everything seemed to come out fine. Could you be more specific about your problem?

    On a different matter, a couple of commenters recently complained that the Comment Archive pages weren’t loading for them, possibly because of CloudFlare. I’m wondering how widespread the problem seems to be.

    The pages are cached and pretty large because they default to the most recent 100 comments. Perhaps I should reduce them to the most recent 50 comments and/or default them to just those of the current year. How do all of you feel about this.

    Otherwise, please use this thread to let me know about any other software problems and/or suggestions you have.

  48. Wally says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    said:
    “It’s a pity, Ron, that your present article describes your site as “a publication providing a convenient home to both the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right, joint access to ideological extremists, conspiracy theorists, racialists, historical revisionists, and other miscellaneous malcontents” instead of as having higher quality-standards than those less-successful sites do, but that’s sadly an accurate description of your site. ”

    You clearly mean “revisionists” who have simply shot your fake & impossible “holocaust” story to pieces, as has Ron Unz himself. You don’t like it, yet have no chance in debate against them. Hence, rather than debate and attempt to refute what you have been confronted you with, you try to dodge & smear.

    Excellent examples in the comments here:
    Against David Irving’s View of Hitler: http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/
    and:
    American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

    Only Lies Require Censorship / The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds. See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

  49. Wally says:
    @Vegan Shark

    The Unz Review has brought to light the fact that people DO want to hear opinions which ‘the MSM’ say they do not.

    One of the most common tactics by the Zionist controlled MSM is to claim there is public outrage at opinions, viewpoints, and speech for which there is no such outrage, and in many cases vast public support.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Only Lies Require Censorship.

  50. Antiwar7 says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    A lot of the repliers seemed to miss one point. From the original comment:

    It is too bad that you as an editorial gateway — as a submissions-editor — are not good, and thus now totally ban me as a writer, simply because I am disgusted at your site’s orientation favoring various bigotries (which constitute a large portion of “the angry flapping of our contributing writers”) and your site’s indiscriminateness as regards the quality of what you publish (some of which is good but much of which is bad or even very poor).

    I agree with the other repliers, no big deal if he averts his gaze. But it would be a shame if his future articles were banned here.

  51. Wally says:
    @jonathan dl

    So why is free speech a problem for you?

  52. Mike P says:
    @Ron Unz

    The pages are cached and pretty large because they default to the most recent 100 comments. Perhaps I should reduce them to the most recent 50 comments and/or default them to just those of the current year. How do all of you feel about this.

    Most recent 10 or 20 might be enough, with a button to load more if needed.

  53. @Antiwar7

    Ron has told me that he won’t ever again publish anything from me, so I should never again submit anything.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  54. jim jones says:

    Congratulations to Ron and anyone else who posts here, it is encouraging to see so many people willing to stand up against the Narrative.

  55. @David

    Fair enough. But that topic always sparks a lively debate which those who bring in better evidence, such as you are doing now, win.

    It may be that Ron enjoys watching people joust and is willing to provide an arena. To get the ball rolling and people’s blood simmering he has to tolerate a certain amount of off-the-wall stuff (of which I’ve been guilty of a few myself).

    • Replies: @David
  56. m___ says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    It’s a pity, Ron, that your present article describes your site as “a publication providing a convenient home to both the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right, joint access to ideological extremists, conspiracy theorists, racialists, historical revisionists, and other miscellaneous malcontents” instead of as having higher quality-standards than those less-successful sites do, but that’s sadly an accurate description of your site. At least you were honest there.

    Indeed, the tining and texture, the content management, the php coding for style, meritorious.
    The functionality of the comments and the possibilities for the backend to mine data notorious.
    Nothing original but well done, and shoestring Ron only knows how much man-hours of tweaks that takes.
    StackExchange, Github, Fecesbook, Twitter, Google all know that part of the game well.
    The applicancy of method and understanding of data mining is meant to be a compliment for a “one-man” operation.
    Strategically analysing what associative methods are possible makes Ron a mind to recon with.
    Sadly the Jew mindset kicks in, put smart analytics into dumb systemics …and wake up in the middle of New York or Brussels.
    Politicians, lobby-ists, bread-writers, media queens of a single night, dark suit mafia types.

    [MORE]

    Content, goal defining, philosophical and scientific appliance, clear vocabulary, not for a dime. Our question repeated, first time posited a year ago. What is the idea and goal behind unz.com? Who finances, why do content loaded writers, not occasionally appear. The answer insofar is audience rallying, call it anything else if you please. This single of all scenarios of course makes for “only numbers” count.

    It amounts to ruling on top of a pile of dung, rather then to coax original elaboration, much contrary to the numbers game. If the content carries a load, the writers are supposed to be thinkers and operatives first, writing, the expression and sharing of ideas. A Wikileaks conceptual of allowing anonymous(real anonymous) sources in, cannot be missing then. A horizon that Ron sadly featured out. Encryption, proxy manipulation, hard-ware requirements, no sub-contracting, hashes, block-chain?, electronic alternative value transfers, a subterranean organization, and a shouting match if you please layered on top come to mind. That is where talent should be vested.

    The case is not to be made for above, no publication that collars itself to regular and audience pleasing publishing is most probably feasible. Stucture is the sociological expression of the restricted human mind.
    No bread-writers would mean drooling numbers of readers and commenters. A Jewish con job, a rag, the old-time movie “The Sting” with Robby Redford come to mind. We are one step away from the Sopranos and their mind-farts. Under the hood, the whole of the systemics look boringly conventional, a ream of Jews tuning into the crowds.

    Your site isn’t written for open-minded intelligent people but instead for people who simply are attracted to “the angry flapping of our contributing writers.”

    Might we add, and an audience, choking on the even worse dredge of mass media, being given a sense of belonging and participating (“commenting”, karaoke) in the linear threads to nowhere.

    It is a sign of human social traits that such a trivet can flourish, as it did in other forms in other periods.
    Will it last a while, we do think so, will it break down, obligatorily, it will not survive a generational change in readership as an example.

    Congrats to Ron, such a mind, and at the service of such a miserable cause.

  57. Ron Unz says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    Ron has told me that he won’t ever again publish anything from me, so I should never again submit anything.

    Indeed. Here’s the complete email exchange responsible, with everything dated Feb. 19th:

    Zuesse:

    On February 13th you said you’d “run this one in the next couple of days or so,” but I keep looking (which an author shouldn’t need to do) and I still haven’t seen it, now 6 days later, which is well beyond “the next couple of days or so.” When will you post it?

    Unz:

    Actually, Eric, I featured it at the end of last week [Feb. 15th], just as I said I would:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-international-rogue-nation-america/

    It did pretty well both in traffic and in comments, getting almost 150 of the latter. It’s really pretty strange that you somehow missed it.

    Zuesse:

    Probably the reason I didn’t see it before is that the only reason I check your site is to find my article on it so as to distribute it elsewhere. Perhaps your other writers are regulars and therefore are routinely visiting there, but I am not, and so I don’t.

    Other sites routinely send authors notifications and the link when an article is posted there.

    Unz:

    No problem, Eric…

    Frankly, I hadn’t thought that your latest submission was very good, any more than any of your previous ones had been. But since you hadn’t pestered me in quite a while, I felt a little sorry for you and agreed to run it.

    You say you don’t like my webzine and never visit it except to look at your own articles. That’s fine. Since it’s unlikely I’ll ever run another one, I guess it’s Bye-Bye…

    Zuesse:

    [Ranting about UNZ.com being totally filled with horrific amounts of “garbage,” especially “anti-Semiticism” and “Holocaust Denial”]

    • Replies: @Eric Zuesse
    , @Anonymous
  58. m___ says:
    @Len

    I’m amazed you’re allowed to run a campaign on Patreon. How’d that happen?

    That’s to be reverse engineered by schmoozing only.

    Another one? Karlin is posted as the successor in waiting of Ron. Hold on to your wits!

  59. @Ron Unz

    That’s correct, but incomplete, because my response was:

    I didn’t say that I “never visit it except to look at my own articles.” But it’s not a site I constantly am checking to find news to report or to find essential relevant facts to deeply understanding the news.

    I didn’t say I “don’t like your webzine.”

    However, I do notice that an extraordinarily high percentage of your readership (to judge by the reader-comments) are obsessed against “the Jews” “Rothschild,” and denying the Holocaust. I oppose bigotry of every type and I’d be just as repelled by a site that supports the South’s side of the Civil War. But I have an open mind to everything, and so I do read that garbage on your site — how could I miss it: your site is so full of it. I just now was examining a link among those comments from one of your readers and I sought further to see where it’s coming from, and I came to this: “Taking into account everything above, I would propose that the term ‘Holocaust’ be defined as: ‘The mistreatment and death of Jewish civilians at the hands of the combatants during the Second World War (1939-1945).’” https://www.historiography-project.com/misc/definition.php [And that presents your reader’s definition: “Taking into account everything above, I would propose that the term “Holocaust” be defined as: “The mistreatment and death of Jewish civilians at the hands of the combatants during the Second World War (1939-1945).”]

    I always look at things from the victim’s standpoint, Ron, and therefore that assumption — that the issue regarding the Holocaust is “mistreatment” and “death” instead of torture and intentional and carefully planned mass-murder, is actually repulsive to me (and I am no Jew). I feel the same regarding murder and torture of Christians in Muslim-majority lands, and of Muslims in Christian-majority lands. Your reader-comments sections are repulsive because they are so full of bigotry, AND YOUR ARTICLES ENCOURAGE INSTEAD OF DISCOURAGE IT. It comes from you. It’s only a reflection of you.

    Ethnicity should never even be discussed when talking about class-issues, issues of wealth-versus-poverty (the aristocracy versus the public)! But your articles are obsessed with it (AN IRRELEVANCY), and that’s why your site attracts readers who also are. Your site reflects what you are, and — but only to that extent — I don’t like that one bit. In fact, I find it disgusting, because it reflects what you are.

  60. Anonymous[219] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Such a shame. Sounds like a reasonable gentleman.

  61. @Erebus

    marshalling facts with closely reasoned arguments will get you a lot more respect from this crowd than you might imagine.

    Hmm… well… actually, my own experience on that has been very, very mixed.

    I contributed six articles to this site and I do not recall anything I wrote ever having been rebutted factually or logically. Moreover, if any commenter had the shadow of a shadow of a legitimate critique of anything I said in an article, I would address it. Legitimately, using facts and logic. I honestly do not believe that anybody ever really scored a debating point against me in any of the discussion under any of my articles.

    [MORE]

    Now, that may have won me some respect from some quarters, but overall, the whole thing was not a great experience. Since nothing I said could be refuted legitimately, you had various trolls mounting personal attacks from behind a cloak of anonymity. In many cases, it was really, more than anything else, a campaign of organized harassment. I don’t think I’m more thin-skinned than average, but it was quite a disturbing experience not only because people were allowed to do all this anonymously, but also because the editor of the publication seemed to be taking the side of the anonymous harassers. Whenever I brought up objections, saying that something ought to be done about this, it was construed as favoring “censorship”. The editor of the e-zine seemed to be saying tacitly that these attacks constituted “free speech” — though I am pretty sure they were not “free speech” by any common sense understanding of the concept.

    …especially on positions that you find not just “simply”, but particularly and egregiously “untrue”.

    Well, I have a suspicion that Eric Zuesse is talking about different things from what I would mention, but there is a longstanding problem with UR running material that is demonstrably untrue. There is a problem also with material that constitutes intellectual fraud. A particularly egregious example of this was Fred Reed’s Tin Foil Hat piece.

    In terms of a whole series of articles that are just demonstrably false, for the last few years, the main racialist writers on this site have backed a synthetic narrative about a rape epidemic in Germany attributable to Muslim refugees. At this point, that whole thing is quite demonstrably false. The German government has published its crime statistics through 2017 and there is no rape epidemic anywhere to be found in the data. In fact, all the statistics show broadly that crime in Germany is at multi-decade lows. I know that people will then claim that these statistics are all falsified. However, there is no real reason to believe that. As far as I can see, the people making this claim are grasping at straws.

    Frankly, I think a lot of the desire to turn me into persona non grata here is because there is no willingness to deal with this issue honestly. Again, I don’t think this is a free speech issue because telling malicious, defamatory lies does not constitute “free speech”.

    In general, I have come to the conclusion that “free speech” in the absence of a commitment to factual truth is of very limited value. There is no particular value to an astronomy website in which some contributors claim that the earth goes round the sun while others say the sun goes round the earth. At a point in time when there is a legitimate dispute about such a question, then one can let both sides have at it, but at some point, things get factually resolved.

    Thus, there is no particular value in having writers who uphold the official story on 9/11, since it has been shown to be false every which way to Sunday. So that has no value.

    But again, what clearly has no value is anonymous trolls mounting personal attacks against you because they have no legitimate response to what you’re saying. The biggest single problem on this site is the seeming lack of understanding of the difference between free speech and sheer assholery. I imagine I do agree with Eric Zuesse that a lot of the hard-core race-baiting sort of material is more the latter than the former.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @republic
    , @Erebus
  62. m___ says:
    @John Achterhof

    Saker up front, and Shamir in a wheelchair to the left.

  63. m___ says:
    @Michael Hoffman

    Orwellian

    At unz.com we like Orwellian, that is why we “do” Patreon. And CloudFlare, and outsourced statistics analysis.

  64. Anon[129] • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe Unz.com can attract more people with…

    1. Unz-Beat section. New Yorker has ‘talk of the town’ to keep the readers up to the date on the cultural zeitgeist. A critical take on American Life from top to bottom.

    2. Unz-50. Contact a reader-writer from each of the 50 states to offer a sense of what is happening in the state. As most of flyover country and more rural-states hardly get any attention, this can prove to be informative.

    3. Unz-TV. Youtube now has livestreaming. A weekly show like McLaughlin Group where various Unz writers(and maybe some readers) take part in discussion of various topics. Derbyshire can be moderator. The Derb Group?

    4. Unz-Books. A place to buy books banned by any system: Communism, Far-Right, Zionist, Corporate Oligarchy, Islamic, globo-homo, etc.

    5. Unz Literary Review Section: While Unz.com has a fair amount of book reviews, it’s not a regular thing. Perhaps, each Unz writer can be goaded to write at least one book review per month. Or maybe a new writer can be a book reviewer.

    6. Unz Sports & Unz gaming: Every paper has a sports section and stuff about tech & gaming. Gaming community has grown quite politicized over the years. As most people tend to be apolitical and prefer leisure & entertainment over politics and ideology, PC has decided to add ideological spice to everything: videogames, comic books, etc.

    7. Unz grab-bag. People donate a certain sum to win the prize of the week or month.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin, TheBoom
    • Disagree: atlantis_dweller
    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    , @TheBoom
  65. @Eric Zuesse

    Eric Zuesse—carefully planned mass-murder

    That careful planning could reasonably be expected to feature in the Enigma decrypts obtained by Bletchley Park but there is no mention of anything resembling mass murder. There is, however, mention of typhus and how best to defeat the disease. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes about the decrypts in Breaking the Spell, beginning on page 95 of this PDF. An introduction to the decrypts is here.

  66. Mike P says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    In general, I have come to the conclusion that “free speech” in the absence of a commitment to factual truth is of very limited value.

    That is a good point, and I for one appreciate the inquisitive thoroughness that you have shown in your own writings.

    Again, I don’t think this is a free speech issue because telling malicious, defamatory lies does not constitute “free speech”.

    We have to allow for the effectiveness of propaganda though – one man’s deliberate lie may become his dupe’s honest belief, and we shouldn’t judge both by the same standard for saying the same thing.

    I don’t think I’m more thin-skinned than average

    What a man of your inclinations needs though is a skin that is way thicker than average. Like it or not, the more you stick to the truth, the more people will get upset with you; that is just crowd psychology 101. You will need a method to deal with this that doesn’t cost you too much time, energy, or happiness.

    I never look at much of the stuff that Ron agrees to run, but it is his funeral. Overall, there is enough here on UR that I consider valuable and that keeps me interested. UR is an oasis in the desert, even if there is plenty of camel dung on the outskirts.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  67. That careful planning could reasonably be expected to feature in the Enigma decrypts obtained by Bletchley Park but there is no mention of anything resembling mass murder.

    With regard to the concentration camps, yes, but weren’t mass shootings on the Eastern front running into tens of thousands of victims documented? That’s my memory of the Breitman book, Official Secrets.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  68. Hail says: • Website
    @Laugh Track

    Takimag has no doubt taken audience hits when they put comments behind paywalls

    When exactly did this happen?

    Getting rid of the substantial amount of ‘chaff’ in their comment sections was probably a good thing. Too bad the ‘wheat,’ if that’s what is left, is invisible to the rest of us.

    According to my reading of Ron’s graph, Unz Review and TakiMag were about at parity thru mid 2017, after which they have steadily diverged.

    ______________

    TakiMag was founded in the 2007/2008 period, under the editorship of pre-AltRight Richard Spencer for two of its early years (thru Dec. 2009). As for UR, for me and I am sure many others the Unz Review ‘began’ in mid 2014 with Steve Sailer moving his blog here. Unz Review is therefore about to hit its five-year anniversary.

    One major advantage of UR over TakiMag is the ad-heaviness of the latter, which often makes browsing sluggish and unstable, at risk of browser crashes. This has long urned me off reading the site. Unfortunate.

    One of TakiMag’s main draws is the 1990s-era Jewish Holocaust revisionist superstar David Cole (born ca. 1969). Many will recall his being ‘outed’ in 2013, after living under an assumed identity since the late 1990s (purportedly in response to death threats. Since early 2015, he is a TakiMag regular; AFAIK, Cole, who is an excellent writer and now a kind of a Dissident Right commentator, is one of TakiMag’s main draws besides the inimitable Steve Sailer.

  69. Hail says: • Website

    @ Ron Unz,

    The five-minute edit window is not working on a lot of articles these days. Including this one.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    , @Ron Unz
  70. @Audacious Epigone

    Free speech has gotten so rarified that even half (OK “half” is an underestimation) of its “patrons” hate it while they claim, in good faith, their love of it.

    It’s just human nature to have a deeply blurred vision when it comes to “factual truth” versus what their ego needs to be true, and their ego-defensive drive to censor discordant views versus “shutting down trolling” (in the service of the Common Good and, again, Truth — not at all their ego!).

    Not Unz’s case, though.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  71. @atlantis_dweller

    A widely-known character in a Dostoevsky’s book claims there is one man in ten thousand that can be esteemed truly free.
    It’s that same man who can stand others’ freedom.

    Advocates of “free speech” by words are many more than one in ten thousand, so for many of them one shouldn’t take their word for it.

  72. Hail says: • Website
    @Anon

    The Derb Group

    I don’t know why Steve Sailer doesn’t do more audio/video material, because he comes off well in that medium. In a fair world, he would be a regular commentator on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

    A simple “Steve Sailer” search into Youtube yields an Oct. 2015 interview as the top result. It was with a now-defunct Canadian podcast which was at the time called Two Kevins (Kevin Michael Grace who continues to have some fame on the margins of the Dissident Right and is an UR reader, and Kevin Steele); Steve Sailer early in the interview told the two Kevins to rename their show Grace & Steel, which they did. The Youtube posting of this show is dated Sept. 2016.

    Top comment at Youtube:

    I wish Steve Sailer did more podcasts. Obviously, he’s more in his element when he writing than when he’s talking, but what he has to say is just too good for him to withhold it from us by not making the rounds to all the dissident right podcasts.

    The second Sailer result is a grainy video of a talk he gave at a May 2009 conference in Turkey, which he has often blogged about. I think it was the exposure to Turkey that turned him onto the phrase “The Deep State” (a Turkish coinage, apparently), which he popularized years before it went mainstream (or so is my recollection).

  73. Renoman says:

    In my search for truth I find your site the best! Congratulations and keep up the good work!

  74. @Eric Zuesse

    “Taking into account everything above, I would propose that the term ‘Holocaust’ be defined as: ‘The mistreatment and death of Jewish civilians at the hands of the combatants during the Second World War (1939-1945).’”

    Agree: the definition is woefully inadequate, especially in view of your declaration that you,

    “always look at things from the victim’s standpoint,”
    and (in a related context) disdain distinctions based on ethnicity.

    After all, as Michael Hoffman wrote at the link you graciously cited,

    Was World War Two itself a holocaust over-all, or does the term have a proprietary relationship with Jews alone? How is it that the atomic and thermite incineration of approximately one million helpless German and Japanese civilians, mostly women and children, in deliberate mass murder firebombings by the Allied air forces, does not rate as a holocaust?

    Revisionists are forced to endure from the Exterminationists a particularly chilling and grotesque example of self-aggrandizement when revisionists are accused of denying a World War Two holocaust.

    The overwhelming holocaust of the modern era, for which there is all of the forensic proof the Jewish “Holocaust” is supposed to contain and from which it is also intended to distract, is the merciless Allied fire-bombing holocaust against Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and dozens of other major civilian centers.

    The racism of the ethnocentric “Holocaust” cult is confronted full force in the special criterion established for the phrase “Holocaust survivor. “ Such people are always the victims of the National Socialists and are mostly Jews. Human perception has been so impaired by this cult category that Germans and Japanese who escaped death in the unprecedented firestorms which transformed their cities into pits of mass human incineration, are not referred to as holocaust survivors. https://www.historiography-project.com/jhrchives/v06/v06p467_Hoffman.php

  75. @Antiwar7

    Not a great loss, Mr. Z, Mr. Unz.

    No matter where I read, when Mr. Z’s articles come up, I delete and carry on with the next thing on my list. I’ll give him that he comes up with interesting-sounding titles, and then the bitch-fest ensues.

    He’s like Whitehead (whom I also avoid) always flogging his book, but Mr. Z’s always bitching that his free articles are never published by CNN, etc., like he thinks they SHOULD. All those MSM clowns have an agenda, Mr. Z, and you’re not PART of it. Accept it, move on, and quit yer bitchin’.

    You might have a point, more often than not, no doubt, but your style is off-putting, so I avoid you. ALWAYS.

    Unz is entirely correct to delete you from his stable of authors. Want your own, MAKE your own, and shut up about nobody likes you. You are ENTIRELY correct–nobody DOES.

  76. Congrats, Ron. And thank you for providing this forum.

    I have especially loved your American Pravda series, as well as your excellent regular writers.

    In a world of propaganda MSM, it is enjoyable to see alternative views, even if I disagree with their opinions.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  77. Precisely so. The Holocaust was only one of many genocides, and you are absolutely correct to place it in that light. Similarly, the “Holocaust-deniers” are equivalent to the people who deny that there was a any genocide — any type of organized intentional campaign aimed at extermination — by Turks against Armenians, and by Tutsi against Hutus, and generally regarding genocides, regardless of their particular targets. Frankly, deniers of genocides are disgusting to me because of their callousness and inability to place themselves emotionally in the position of the victims. Right after Menachem Begin led the massacre of the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin in 1948, Albert Einstein publicly called Begin a “fascist,” and that was just about the strongest ideological term of contempt by Jews at that time, though most of today’s Jews in Israel don’t mind at all being fascists, which they overwhelmingly now are. Zionism was always a racist ideology, and Einstein was opposed to it until the Holocaust, when virtually all countries turned Jews away. However, because of Einstein’s repudiation of both theocracy and racism, he turned down an offer to become nominally the President of Israel. Any victim of bigotry who is callous toward the plight of bigotry-victims of other ethnicities than himself is no better than (and often is) himself a bigot. Thus, too, the deniers of any authentic genocide are bottom-of-the-barrel; they spit upon the victims. They self-identify with the perpetrators, not with the victims.

    • Replies: @Pissedoffalese
    , @iffen
  78. Hi Ron. Congratulations. Like a lot of core visitors/commentators here, I’ve become a Unz Review (UR) addict. I’m hooked.

    Not only does UR offer up a stimulating and informative mix of fearless, hard-hitting and substantive material (such as Ron’s very own ‘American Pravda’ series) but the site itself has great visual appeal.

    The diverse collection of independent thinkers (and commentators) at UR has created an outstanding interplay of dissent, opinion, fact and ideas. It’s the Go-to site of the informed Alt-Right.

    Most importantly, UR dares to strike back (and challenge) core axioms of the deadly Zio-American Empire. No sacred cow escapes scrutiny here–even the kosher ones.

    Like you, UR readers sense (and lament) the politically correct clouds of censorship and conformity that are now dominant. This makes the Unz Review an invaluable bulwark against the forces that would de-platform their adversaries rather than face them in a debate.

    Their systematic clampdown on Free Speech and intellectual liberty is chilling and ongoing. In recent times, it began with speech codes and laws that punished dissent from the official narrative concerning WWII. The noose is still tightening. Can UR survive?

    Ron notes that “during the 1950s, any proposal to ban suspected Communists from making telephone calls, watching television, or having bank accounts would have been ridiculed as utter lunacy, but in today’s America, equivalent actions are steadily growing more frequent and more severe.”

    Very true.

    Efforts are underway (with many succeeding) that impose economic and criminal penalties for those who challenge ‘settled’ narratives. Our fight to regain our freedoms has just begun.

    Thank you, Ron, for taking a leading role in protecting Free Speech and intellectual liberty.

    PS- and thank you for keeping the Comments section at UR open and uncensored.

    • Disagree: apollonian
    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  79. @Eric Zuesse

    I seem to have missreplied:

    I don’t generally like to repeat myself or slag off prodigious writers such as yourself, but I wanted to make sure YOU, Mr. Z., got some feedback cuz I replied to the wrong dude, so here goes again:

    Not a great loss, Mr. Z, Mr. Unz,

    No matter where I read, when Mr. Z’s articles come up, I delete and carry on with the next thing on my list. I’ll give him that he comes up with interesting-sounding titles (cuz I ALWAYS click on them–sorta like Lendeman, and I can’t stand him either), and then the bitch-fest ensues.

    He’s like Whitehead (whom I also avoid) always flogging his book, but Mr. Z’s always bitching that his free articles are never published by CNN, etc., like he thinks they SHOULD. All those MSM clowns have an agenda, Mr. Z, and you’re not PART of it. Accept it, move on, and quit yer bitchin’.
    You might have a point, more often than not, no doubt, but your style is off-putting, so I avoid you.

    ALWAYS.

    Unz is entirely correct to delete you from his stable of authors–you seem just to want to provoke fights. Want your own website, MAKE your own, and shut up about how nobody likes you. You are ENTIRELY correct–nobody DOES. Well, at least I don’t.

    I used to read you cuz you were ubiquitious, and mostly still are, but as soon as I see your byline anymore, zip, GONE. Waste of my time.

    I wish you luck; you have worthwhile things to say, but your style needs work.

    Pissedoffalese

  80. @republic

    Japanese entrepreneur Den Fujita’s first book, “The Jewish Way of Doing Business,” sold more than a million copies in Japan, but remains unpublished in the West. The fact that it’s respectful–nay, laudatory–with respect to its topic doesn’t seem to matter. It just came too close to the Third Rail.

    • Replies: @res
    , @republic
  81. @fenestol

    “Contributions” like this one is why this site needs a ‘report’ button.

  82. @Ron Unz

    Two things off the top of my head: first, it might be useful if regular commenters had a way to exchange private messages and/or contact info; and second, once a particular commenter has been ‘Ignored’ by x number of others, s/he gets booted from the site.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Mike P
  83. @Henry's Cat

    Does any reasonable observer really doubt that tens of thousands were killed, though? Even unto six figures, when all causes are taken into account? But what’s the overall tally for the war years, when we’re counting humans, rather than someone’s favorite kind of humans? Eighty million or so? How many people even know? Does this mean anything to you?

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  84. @Hail

    Working fine for me, FWIW. Your browser settings perhaps?

  85. @mark green

    Ron notes that “during the 1950s, any proposal to ban suspected Communists from making telephone calls, watching television, or having bank accounts would have been ridiculed as utter lunacy, but in today’s America, equivalent actions are steadily growing more frequent and more severe.”

    Sobering, deeply worrisome, and very much worth repeating.

  86. @Eric Zuesse

    Ethnicity should never even be discussed when talking about class-issues, issues of wealth-versus-poverty

    Good luck with that.

    • Replies: @Eric Zuesse
  87. @Mike P

    I for one appreciate the inquisitive thoroughness that you have shown in your own writings.

    It’s nice of you to say that, Mike, but my view is that, in a more sane world, the approach I take to factual questions would not be noteworthy. It would be the baseline expected from any participant in a serious intellectual venue. Moreover, I would say that the fact that you commend me for this actually says more about what a degraded environment we are operating in than anything about me particularly. That I care about factual truth should not be something noteworthy!

    We have to allow for the effectiveness of propaganda though – one man’s deliberate lie may become his dupe’s honest belief, and we shouldn’t judge both by the same standard for saying the same thing.

    Mike, I think you’re really confusing the issue at hand. When I said that there is a need for a “commitment to factual truth”, I was not talking about a situation where nobody ever makes an honest mistake!

    [MORE]

    Look, to focus things, consider this: suppose I referred to Toronto as the capital of Canada, and you were to correct me, and say: No, Jon, the capital of Canada is Ottawa.

    Surely, you’d agree that a factual dispute about a question like that should have a very very short half-life, because it is just so easy to check and see that Ottawa is the capital of Canada.

    Imagine that you say that you have a site with all this wonderful “free speech” because we have people arguing that Toronto is capital of Canada, other people arguing that it is Montreal and we even have a few fringe “conspiracy theorists” who say it is Ottawa. (LOL! I never even heard of the place!)

    Okay, obviously Ottawa being the capital of Canada cannot be the subject of any legitimate controversy whatsoever. It’s just too easy to check a fact like that. So, anything about which there is a controversy will be something that is somewhat more difficult to fact check. But, still, basic questions like, whether the official story on 9/11 is broadly true, are factually resolvable, at least in principle. Whether there really is a rape epidemic going on in Germany attributable to Muslim refugees is, in principle at least, a factually resolvable question. And so on.

    Actually, not only are those last two questions factually resolvable, they are pretty easy to resolve. No, the 9/11 official story is not remotely true and no, there never was any rape epidemic in Germany. (At least not since 1945, when the Red Army entered Berlin…)

    My position would be that, if something is, in principle, a factually resolvable question, there is a need to make a maximal, good-faithed effort to resolve the question. One can conceive of situations where a question is factually resolvable in principle but it cannot be resolved as a practical matter. But still, the only way to conclude that a question cannot be resolved would be to attempt to do so!

    BUT… in any case, once a question is factually resolved, then that’s that. It is simply not tenable to go around talking about somebody’s “freedom of speech” to go around saying that Toronto is the capital of Canada. That wouldn’t be compatible with a mentally hygienic environment where there is a commitment to factual truth.

    What a man of your inclinations needs though is a skin that is way thicker than average.

    Well, it’s not about me specifically, Mike. It’s about understanding, at long last, the difference between “free speech” and assholery. Or, for that matter, understanding the difference between real facts and storytelling. Unz Review is quite weak on that sort of basic issue and, for that reason, does not remotely live up to its potential.

    All this fawning fanboy stuff about how great “free speech” is largely misses the point. Admittedly, UR is better as it is than most anything else out there, but unfortunately, that’s not really saying too much. The panorama is pretty desolate.

  88. @Mr McKenna

    Does any reasonable observer really doubt that tens of thousands were killed, though?

    Better ask Wally that.

    Even unto six figures, when all causes are taken into account?

    I’m talking about one particular cause – the cold-blooded execution of tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians by an occupying force would be a war crime without parallel in European history. And if the British believed this of the Germans by the end of 1941, then surely it impacted on their resolve to fight the war to the bitter end and to later employ the most barbaric methods, i.e., terror bombing.

    Let me make it clear, I consider myself a revisionist – I doubt the existence of Nazi gas chambers, and any grand, overarching extermination plans – but I part company with those that reject the evidence for all mass killings.

    • Replies: @Wally
  89. @dvorak

    “Commentary made a fundraising centerpiece out of “The End of White America”?
    Fascinating.”

    And a bit self-congratulatory, no?

    • LOL: atlantis_dweller
  90. @Henry's Cat

    Bigotry is worth discussing, as something that must be reduced, but inequality of economic opportunity has many other causes than that. Everything that reduces inequality of economic opportunity needs to be focused upon, in addition to reducing bigotry, but any bigot gets constantly distracted by his particular groupist gripe, and that’s way any political conversation becomes distracted from the major causes of inequality of economic opportunity.

  91. Trevor H. says:

    ‘Divining the truth requires the greatest breadth of opinion to be taken into account, not excluding even the wildest and silliest ideas. And it requires the greatest achievable independence of opinions, so that all are adding in their own view rather than recycling someone else’s mistake.”

    The Times of London. April 05, 2006

    “Guess the weight of the ox: then you will see what’s wrong with our politics”

    Daniel Finkelstein

  92. David says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Also, asking him to review submissions for all kinds of accuracy is rather a lot to ask.

  93. Wade says:

    Congratulations, Ron! It’s great news to hear how well this webzine does. However, given the reasons why, I hope you’re a very careful man!

    I hope the site continues its growth trend. Best of luck!

  94. iffen says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    I missed your articles at the UR. Now I’m going to have to go look for and read them, and not just because R. Unz said that they weren’t worth publishing.

    • Replies: @Eric Zuesse
  95. res says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Interesting. I wonder how much it would cost to commission a translation and just make it available as a free PDF.

  96. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Censurous lemmings like you are a dime a dozen and 98% of the internet is already catering to you and your ilk. Did you miss the point of the article? Did you miss the presented data? Relative commitment to free speech is the reason for the site’s success. It’s a supply-demand mechanism. Unz supplies a (relatively) free-speech platform in a world where they’re disappearing.

    Do you get it now?

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @onebornfree
  97. @iffen

    Thanks, Wade, for your open-mindedness. I think that if you will click onto the links in my articles, you will find that in the rigor to avoid citing lying sources, I am much more careful than are the writers who are disagreeing with me — careful to avoid citing false ‘evidence’. In other words: I am careful to state only 100% truths. I don’t link to a source unless I have independently verified its authenticity and its truthfulness. That eliminates most of what is published. But that elimination is not because of censorship; it is because avoiding pollution of the evidence-stream is absolutely crucial in order to come to a rational, just, verdict, on anything.

  98. Mike P says:
    @Mr McKenna

    … once a particular commenter has been ‘Ignored’ by x number of others, s/he gets booted from the site.

    This will cause them to come back with a new sock puppet, and then everyone has to block them all over again.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Mr McKenna
  99. Ron Unz says:
    @Hail

    The five-minute edit window is not working on a lot of articles these days. Including this one.

    The Comment Edit feature requires the creation of a new cookie, so maybe your browser cookies have gotten clogged up. Try clearing them and perhaps that will fix the problem.

    • Replies: @Hail
  100. Charles says:

    As you may know Mr. Unz, the liberal Dissent and conservative Commentary have merged to form Dysentery.

  101. @Eric Zuesse

    “But I have an open mind to everything, and so I do read that garbage on your site …”

    Hilarious.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  102. The term used by Mr. Unz to describe some of his less thoughtful readers, “miscellaneous malcontents”, fits me perfectly.

  103. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    It would be unworkable anyway. Most comments don’t get a reply and the number of interactions is mostly dependent on the article’s popularity, comment’s position and the size of the comment section. Mr McKenna didn’t think this through.

    Not to mention that anonymous comments – a big plus on the site – would have to go under his regime.

    I’m kinda fed up with these whiny goblins and their incessant need to demand another bland safe space in a sea of bland safe spaces.

  104. Wally says:
    @Henry's Cat

    said:
    “I’m talking about one particular cause – the cold-blooded execution of tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians by an occupying force would be a war crime without parallel in European history.
    Let me make it clear, I consider myself a revisionist – I doubt the existence of Nazi gas chambers, and any grand, overarching extermination plans – but I part company with those that reject the evidence for all mass killings.”

    Except that you have no proof for your ‘mass killings of civilians’ by the Germans.
    Please present it if you dare to try.

    [MORE]

    Lets also see the alleged immense human remains that are claimed by Jews to be in known locations, recall the debunked ‘holocaust by bullets’ claims.
    See my comment #107 for more on your impossible ‘holocaust-lite’ silliness.

    You are no Revisionist, at least not of the rationally minded variety, hence you still believe in the impossible

    You are over matched, but hey, give it your best shot, I await.

    http://www.codoh.com

  105. KenH says:

    I think the rapid growth of Unz.com proves that people are tiring of establishment guardrails regarding the hot button topics of the day and hunger for the truth which you rarely get from them especially on matters like race, immigration and Jewish power and influence. A growing number of people want off the reservation which most popular sites like The New Republic, The Nation and Foreign Policy serve to keep them on.

    The other advantage of Unz is the liberal commenting policy. There is true freedom of speech here whereas many other sites, including some conservative and pro-white sites, have a comments section that is heavily policed and censored which spoils the funs because so many things could run afoul of the censor(s) in charge that day. This tends to drive away readership because part of the fun is in reading the comments and finding like minded people.

    Last year when I posted a comment on an article at The Hill I was restricted from posting for 48 hours after I used the word “libtard” to describe leftists. That wasn’t as heavy handed as some sites but still petty.

  106. republic says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    There is a problem also with material that constitutes intellectual fraud. A particularly egregious example of this was Fred Reed’s Tin Foil Hat piece.

    You are right about Reed’s piece

  107. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Haha, true. He’s so open-minded that he’d willingly read “trash” and “garbage” on a “disgusting” website while demanding from Unz – who’s apparently sharing those qualities because the site “reflects” what he is – to replace the offending content with Zuesse’s stone tablets.

    Eric is a funny guy, no doubt.

  108. republic says:
    @Mr McKenna

    There are hundreds of books published in Japanese on the topic Japan and the Jews

    This is a New York Times article from 1987

    https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/world/japanese-writers-critical-of-jews.html

    also from 1991

    https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/19/world/in-a-tide-of-japanese-books-on-jews-an-anti-semitic-current.html

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
  109. Hail says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    The problem was the comment would disappear as soon as it was made on most articles, though not on blogs. Once it was approved, the comment would appear but the initial disappearance effectively meant no edit window.

    I cleared cookies for Unz.com and will see if that clears the problem.

    __________

    Edit — Am able to edit now. (Still strange that the problem affected articles but not blogs.) More edits, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  110. Zumbuddi says:
    @Hail

    Yup. Same problem: comment disappeared immediately after pressing Publish.
    No opportunity to Edit, no visibility of comment In Moderation.

    The above happened two days ago using mobile device, nut not yesterday using laptop.

    Let’s test mobile today;

  111. Zumbuddi says:

    Test of mobile FAILED.

    Comment disappeared after pressing Publish.

  112. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @republic

    But didn’t you notice a decline in the quality of the comments on those sites?

    • Replies: @republic
  113. @Anon

    Agreed with Unz 3-6, neutral on the rest.

    Weekly or biweekly podcast (or video game live stream if we want to be really hip) would be cool, though organizing such things is not entirely trivial. Somebody will have to work at least part-time on that.

    Unz Books is a great idea IMO and would jive really well with the content archiving system our host has already set up. Will also get the site some $$$.
    Might be especially relevant now that Amazon has gone on from being an unusual oasis of freedom to outright politicized censorship in the past few months, banning Roosh and a bunch of (moderate) white nationalists.

    Unz Literary – I would love to do more book reviews, but the sad reality is, book reviews take 2-3x the effort for 2-3x less comments/visitorship. Still, I do hope to shift more attention there someday.

    Unz Video Games – I really like that idea, and I hope to do more game reviews myself some time. Roosh once set up Reaxxion mag, which attempted to do something similar – cover games from a non-SJW viewpoint in the age of Gamergate. It didn’t take off, but its goal was to make money; profitability concerns are not paramount at UR.

  114. Trevor H. says:
    @republic

    Part of me misses the comments but mostly I remember how the S/N ratio was pretty rotten–and worsening.

  115. Trevor H. says:
    @republic

    Consider that Japan is a safe, orderly, peaceful and non-diverse society with a high standard of living and a much greater degree of economic equality than we have. The Japanese don’t even start wars or permit mass third-world immigration. There are just so many reasons why our own ‘Ruling Class’ would find fault. Yep, it must be anti-semitism.

  116. @Mike P

    There’s a thing called an IP Address Block, and it’s already in use here. FWIW.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  117. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says: “..Did you miss the point of the article? Did you miss the presented data? Relative commitment to free speech is the reason for the site’s success. It’s a supply-demand mechanism. ..”

    Its worth bearing in mind that the world is full of morons who think everyone should be compelled to believe what they do and will whine/complain etc when that does not happen at a particular site.

    If I assume [purely for the sake of argument, mind you 🙂 ], that Facebook, Google, Apple etc. are not government created and controlled entities, and are genuine private companies, then it seems to me that they have all made very serious business mistakes [ due to pressure from previously referenced whining morons] by completely abandoning their original, free market, open door “anything goes, here” policies.

    The abandoning of the free market, open door, “anything goes, here” policies will, I predict, result in their fall from popularity and their complete replacement via new , competing platforms with more open door “anything goes, here” policies that do not cave to the demands of whining morons, or governments.

    Obviously, the free market “anything goes, here” approach was enormously successful and was directly responsible for all of these companies original massive growth- to me a clear demonstration of the awesome power of free markets in general.

    However, as I believe that Facebook, Google et al were never fully private companies, and are now instead wholly owned/operated arms of the US government, then the move to massive censorship makes total sense, as governments are all inevitably run by morons [i.e. control freaks]. So first the public needed to be sucked in via open door “anything goes, here” policies.

    In the end, the market [i.e the sum of individual human choices at any point in time] always wins, so it will always beat any gang of clowns and morons known as “the government” and its latest awful stepchild, all of those big tech companies, that try to compel/manipulate certain thoughts, actions and behaviors . Just give it [Mr Market] time 🙂 .

    Regards, onebornfree

  118. Svigor says:

    Hey Ron, looks like Andrew Torba created what I suggested to you, some years back:

    https://dissenter.com/about

    • Replies: @Svigor
  119. Svigor says:
    @Svigor

    Yeah this thing looks pretty cool. It’s a plugin for your browser that adds/accesses a free-speech section (available only to users of the plugin, obviously) to any page you visit.

    OY VEY, SHUT IT DOWN!!!

    Huge threat of this thing going viral*. Much more dangerous to the SQ than Gab, IMO.

    *Huge threat of a bunch of competing kosher versions too, so as to censor the speech, dilute the effect, and fragment the discussion.

  120. @Ron Unz

    I comment at times on the platform Disqus at the Zürich daily NZZ and at Perlentaucher in Berlin and Disqus disables my comments as soon as I link to unz.com.

    The people from perlentaucher answered my complaints and said, they would not interfere at all. I wrote to Disqus and asked what’s up, but got no answer. On their forum site though, there were others, who reported the same experiences.

  121. republic says:
    @anonymous

    In regard to Taki, I found the comments there very good

  122. Anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Changing IPs is trivially easy.

  123. @Dieter Kief

    LOL.
    Lol not at your comment, but at the disabling.

  124. indocon says:

    Mr Unz, thank you for setting up unz.com

    • LOL: apollonian
  125. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hmm… well… actually, my own experience on that has been very, very mixed.

    Did you expect an unmixed experience? This is a public forum, after all.

    … there is no particular value in having writers who uphold the official story on 9/11, since it has been shown to be false every which way to Sunday. So that has no value.

    I disagree, with some qualification.

    I’d welcome factually rich, closely reasoned defences of “official” narratives about 9/11, the Holocaust, the moon-landings, or any other controversial subject. Should such a defence appear, I’d consider it valuable and pay it close attention. However much I believe I’m right in my own assessments of these subjects (if any), my weak spot for facts and reason remains open.
    EG: I’ve read the best of the flat-earth and creationist arguments. Though I concluded that they fell short of the mark, they had a value (even if it was negative).

    The issue with Zuesse is that while he employs facts and reason to explicate important subjects, he drops both as soon as the very facts and reasoning he introduced start pointing in a direction he’s loathe to go in. Participants in a public forum are normally thankful for the former, but start circling like sharks when they smell the latter. Pressed on the matter, and sometimes in anticipation of being pressed, he starts hurling insults and/or exits the discussion. That the sharks then press their attack should surprise no-one.

    In your case, you showed that the ‘rape epidemic” is, in whole or in part a false meme. Okay, that’s interesting but false memes ain’t exactly new. One can prove that as often as one likes, but at some point the discussion either moves on to explore the possible agendas and players that drive the false meme and any counter-memes, and the socio-political context in which the meme battle is taking place, or it dies on a vine that remains unexplored.

    To be sure, exploring that vine invites all kinds of noise. Some of it may be gratuitously grating, but that’s just life. Looking for signals in the noise is how truths are found. When a contributor tries to kill discussion at the moment the noise starts, and/or worse starts hurling insults, he’s bound only to create more, and even more grating, noise. Eventually it begins to look like increasing the noise level is precisely what’s intended to at least some of the participants. This is a public forum, after all, and not a private conversation so there’s a lot of different views at the table.

    Zuesse says (@ #61)…

    “Ethnicity should never even be discussed when talking about class-issues, issues of wealth-versus-poverty (the aristocracy versus the public)!… I find it disgusting, because it reflects what you are.”

    Huh? Who does he imagine he’s talking to?

    In an open public forum, that sort of statement has all the earmarks of an overt attempt at both gate keeping and at increasing the noise level by baiting the people he claims to be disgusted by. Ethnic issues often underpin the formation of classes and colour class issues. One trip around S. America or S.E. Asia would disabuse any observant person of the notion that “ethnicity ain’t got nuttin’ to do with it”. To what extent it also applies in the West is surely of interest, if not to him or academic Economists, than to others who aren’t necessarily garden variety bigots.

    The gratuitously ugly insult he directs at the host cements his position as a gate keeper, if it doesn’t suggest that he’s slipping into madness. That the sharks have a particular fondness for gate-keepers and madmen shouldn’t surprise anyone either.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  126. You’re right. There are sharks. And there are lunatics, too.

    (Just comes to my mind: We all live in the land of Hänsl and Gretel (the Grimm brothers knew quite a lot about public discourse, and censorship and all that, by the way).

    I’ll copy your comment. This would make for a perfect example of meta-analysis in any publication about public communication.

  127. JackOH says:

    Ron, many thanks, and I’m glad your acuity of vision has brought some results. I guess I rate as a “malcontent” in your taxonomy, but I think it’s worth noting the America we live in has gone a bit wobbly, and malcontentedness seems to me a good alternate way of saying that someone has maintained his bearings in that wobbly America.

  128. Bernie says:

    Glad to hear you are gaining readers. Unz Review is a very good site. Are you ahead of the odious National Review?

  129. @MBlanc46

    Thank you very much. Glad to be here.

  130. @Erebus

    Did you expect an unmixed experience? This is a public forum, after all.

    Well, I didn’t say anything about what one should expect… I was just taking issue with your characterization (it seemed that way) that, as long as you are here debating in an honest, rigorous manner, that everything is hunky dory. That has simply NOT been my experience.

    Again, to be absolutely clear, I am not in agreement with Eric Zuesse really. I infer that a lot of his issue with UR is the holocaust revisionist material, and I do not agree with him at all on that issue — as you well know. I may agree with him (somewhat) on the race/ethnicity sort of material, but in a very nuanced, qualified way…

    … there is no particular value in having writers who uphold the official story on 9/11, since it has been shown to be false every which way to Sunday. So that has no value.

    I disagree, with some qualification.

    Frankly, it is not clear to me what your point of disagreement is…

    I’d welcome factually rich, closely reasoned defences of “official” narratives about 9/11 (snip) Should such a defence appear,

    “Should such a defence appear…” Well, fine. “Should a flying pig appear,….”

    I mean, that’s precisely the issue! I am saying that the utter falsity of the official story on 9/11 is factually established at this point in time. Why? Precisely because there is no such legitimately argued, serious defense of the official story! Right? In my experience, what invariably happens, is that people trying to defend the official story just resort to “beg the question” sorts of arguments. Essentially, they just repeat the story as proof of the story. Well, that and all the ad hominem insults etcetera.

    [MORE]

    Now, you say “should such a defence appear,…”. Sure, fine. But the fact of the matter is that it’s safe to say that this is not gonna happen. If somebody really could show you a flying pig, then yeah, you’d have to sit up and take notice, but it just gets silly.

    The real issue is just whether things really do get factually resolved ever. In another comment, I posed the idea of letting people argue that Toronto is the capital of Canada in the name of “free speech”. Of course, Toronto could be the capital of Canada and in fact, it would make more sense for it to be than what the capital actually is, but it just so happens that it isn’t. A flying pig, on the other hand, is completely obvious nonsense, but regardless…

    In your case, you showed that the ‘rape epidemic” is, in whole or in part a false meme. Okay, that’s interesting but false memes ain’t exactly new.

    Well, there are various issues in all that. First of all, yes, you’re right, a “false meme” is nothing new. People say things that are false. If somebody referred to Toronto as the capital of Canada, it would be false, but it would be a natural mistake as well, but one has to think that in any serious venue, the false statement would get corrected very quickly. If you are at home drinking a beer and in a clumsy moment, spill it, you have to think that the mess would get cleaned up in short order. The liquid wouldn’t be there lying in a puddle on the floor for the next week, right? The issue with the phony rape epidemic in Europe is, just for starters, that it’s false. But also that the story persists and there is seemingly no way of correcting this factually.

    Now, obviously, the reason that such a ridiculous story can persist month after month and year after year is because the people repeating it want very much to believe it. So they refuse to be corrected. So, if you point out that there is now all the official data from the German government, and it is pretty clear that there never was a rape epidemic in Germany, they’ll then tell you that the government was falsifying all the data. It gets comical.

    Now, what you also have is, for example, Ron Unz writing a series of articles about the “Myth of Hispanic crime”, where he goes carefully through the data and shows that the Hispanics simply don’t have a particularly high crime rate, i.e. it’s basically another “false meme”. So, Ron is there arguing, using all the available data and so on, with the full expectation that the facts should prevail and he should be able to correct the false meme.

    BUT… when you bring up the obviously related fact that similar narratives about a rape epidemic in Europe are equally false, then he ignores you. So, somehow the myth of Hispanic crime in the U.S. is something he very much wants to dispel, but then he’ll even insinuate that my insistence on the phoniness of the rape epidemic in Europe is some kind of “weird obsession” of mine and he has said that this is “off-topic” under one of his “myth of Hispanic crime” pieces.

    Now, I don’t know how you square the circle on this. It’s not really about me in particular. Or it certainly shouldn’t be. Well, I’ve wondered whether Ron’s refusal to face this issue head-on is just out of resentment of me, that he doesn’t want to admit that I was right the whole time, but I am very reluctant to think that. In any case, it doesn’t matter that much. The principle in question has nothing to do with me personally. Or really with Ron Unz personally even. It’s a general issue.

    The issue isn’t that there false memes floating around. Of course there are. The question is whether you create an environment in which things get factually resolved — I mean things that really can be factually resolved.

    Now, regarding Zuesse’s statements about ethnicity/race and your reaction to that, well, I certainly don’t think these things should be taboo topics. However, I firmly believe that the majority, probably VAST majority of that material on UR is intellectually worthless. If you look at all of it, pretty much invariably you have somebody deciding what they want to believe and then reasoning backwards; it’s intellectually squalid.

    Also, it is palpable that these people are not addressing race and IQ and such as a dispassionate topic of intellectual inquiry. It is quite obvious that they get huge emotional satisfaction out of saying that certain groups are cognitively inferior.

    Regardless of what the real truth on these questions is, also, a lot of these authors, the way they express things is just very distasteful. These articles are just suffused with this kind of arrogant contempt for entire groups of people. So, that, combined with the intellectually squalid nature of most of the material (all the backwards reasoning and such) tends to make all that stuff pretty disreputable.

    So, I would have some tendency to agree with Zuesse (in a nuanced, qualified way) about that stuff. Again, on the Holocaust revisionism issue and probably also the various pieces about the political power of organized Jewry, I would not agree with Zuesse. In fact, I tend to think those things are necessary. The problem is that it gets mixed up with all this very disreputable stuff, which makes it much easier for people to dismiss it.

    So there is a very big problem going on here, which Zuesse’s comments are at least touching on, but again, I don’t agree that much with Eric Zuesse’s formulation of the issue, no.

    The gratuitously ugly insult he directs at the host cements his position as a gate keeper,

    Well… I don’t think Zuesse’s points, if they center around Holocaust revisionism and things like that are well founded, no. But… there are some real issues that I could talk about based on my personal experience.

    For one thing, our wonderful host seems to be a man who will go to the most absurd lengths to avoid admitting he was ever wrong about anything. And when I say absurd, I mean ABSURD. Like, do you remember that “Maybe Betty Ong was Black” thing?

    That’s one incredible example, but this whole thing that the “myth of Hispanic crime” is worth dispelling but there is no need to address similar myths about things in Europe, this legendary “Muslim rape army”. It’s hard to square that with anybody taking an honest, principled position. If one case needs to be factually resolved, then the other case does too.

    So, in general, the idea that everything is peachy and hunky dory in the magical land of Unzistan…. and that the benevolent leader for life, the great Unz, ruling from his Emerald City, is such a wonderful, wise leader, who is above criticism….

    Well, whatever… maybe German girls are getting raped right, left, and center by the Muzzie savages. Hey, maybe Betty Ong was Black…

    But such questions should be factually resolved and if that involves somebody, even the great Unz, admitting that he was wrong (the horror… the horror…) well…. then maybe that’s what must be.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  131. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Sorry if this has already been answered, but could you be more transparent about which authors are granted (like Mr. Sailer, explicitly so) the moderation privilege, and which are not?

    Mr. Lang pulled up his tent stakes rather than engage critics. Linh Dinh isn’t afraid to mix it up in the threads. On the other hand, several of my comments (about typos) in Mr. Kersey’s pieces have evidently been read, but only by whoever keeps them in perma-moderation.

    Those authors empowered to filter out critical comments should at least have to say so.

  132. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    … as long as you are here debating in an honest, rigorous manner, that everything is hunky dory. That has simply NOT been my experience.

    Well it has been mine, but that’s because I don’t expect everyone else to behave. Or, more accurately, I doesn’t surprise or irritate me at all when my interlocutors misunderstand, insult, ignore me, or prove insane. I say my piece, and let hell blaze all it chooses.

    That’s simply part of the terrain. It’s a public forum, and so every petty bigot and liar and people three parts mad have an equal claim to being heard with those who would contribute a reasoned argument. One might as well complain about the standard meter being too short. It is what it is. If one finds sifting through the dross intolerable, one goes elsewhere, that’s all.

    [MORE]

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the rest, but will address a few points where I think our thinking is quite different…

    Well… I don’t think Zuesse’s points, if they center around Holocaust revisionism and things like that are well founded, no.

    The problem isn’t that his points aren’t “well founded”, it’s that he hasn’t made any. More egregiously, in lieu of offering some, he throws faeces at anyone who ventures close to the topic. There’s a qualitative difference between those two that can’t be bridged by agreeing to disagree.

    If somebody referred to Toronto as the capital of Canada, it would be false, mistake as well…

    … but it wouldn’t be a false meme in the sense we’re talking about here. Neither, I assume, are we talking here about the innocuous “urban legends” (EG: Paul is dead) that gain traction for reasons that will remain unexplored and spread like topsy across decades and continents.

    Here, we are speaking about emotionally potent memes that are created and vigorously promulgated into the public sphere in support of a hidden socio-political agenda. Their truth value is, ipso facto, of secondary interest. That is, whether the meme is true or false isn’t as interesting (in the technical sense) as what agenda is being pushed, by whom and to what end. False memes like the Holocaust don’t just “float around” like ghost stories. Somebody expends considerable effort and monies in creating and pushing them into the public consciousness.
    So, the question is much more than…

    … whether you create an environment in which things get factually resolved

    That ain’t the half of it. The interesting questions, “Who?” & “Why?” take a lot more work and rarely yield a factual resolution.

    Any analysis that treats of the latter type of meme as if it was an urban legend misses the mark. We can play Mythbusters, show videos of a living Paul, roll our eyes at those who insist it’s actually a double, drop it and go on to next one, but memes like the Holocaust, the “rape plague”, 9/11, Sandy Hook, or Russian meddling are entirely different animals. They are weapons in a dead serious competition in which the competitors aim to alter public perception and frame its discourse to their advantage. Ergo, they beg for further probing and analysis.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  133. Ruprecht says:

    Congratulations, Mr. Unz:

    Allowing a platform for all kinds of divergent views is what an open society is supposed to be.

  134. TheBoom says:
    @Anon

    The right has never really grasped the significance of Breitbart’s mantra that politics is downstream from culture.

    Unz is one of my few go-to sites. It would be the top site by far if it branched out more to include various aspects of popular culture such as fiction, non fiction movies, art, TV, etc. In other words like old time magazines.

    Sailer is one of the few on the right who regularly writes about the pop world. For the most part the arts and sports are covered by sjw with few places where half the population can go to find out what is happening.

  135. TheBoom says:

    Ron, great job but keep running unz on a shoestring and have a plan for when unz.com is taken from you. Eventually it will be Daily Stormered.

  136. fnn says:

    An anti-feminist, anti-sexual revolution blogger would probably boost your traffic further. People tend to interested in that sort of thing. Roosh and Chateau Heartiste are prominent examples, but Jim is the most sophisticated one that I’m aware of:
    https://blog.jim.com/

    • Replies: @Ruprecht
  137. @Erebus

    … as long as you are here debating in an honest, rigorous manner, that everything is hunky dory. That has simply NOT been my experience.

    Well it has been mine, but that’s because I don’t expect everyone else to behave.

    Well… you keep using this word “expect” in a rather spurious manner. First of all, in terms of human interaction, this kind of situation we have here on a discussion forum like this, is completely uncharted waters really. I mean this kind of anonymous, disembodied communication. Throughout pretty much all of human history, if people wanted to get together and discuss the issues of the day, they had to get together in some physical place and there was no anonymity. And there were definite rules of thumb, sometimes applied in a more structured, formal way, likes Robert’s Rules of Order or whatever, and other times, just sort of informally understood rules.

    [MORE]

    Your idea, or really, not your idea specifically, that you have “free speech” and that in turn implies that you just have to put up with unlimited… assholery basically… I don’t think it’s really a tenable idea, no.

    In general, you look at any established venue (I mean established pre-Internet certainly) where people get together, about the first thing people do is introduce themselves, and typically exchange business cards. Even in the heyday of Usenet newsgroups, like about 20-odd years ago maybe, the vast majority of people participating did not do so anonymously. That anonymity became the norm was, I guess, after most discussion moved from usenet over to the web.

    So, the first point to make is that all of this state of affairs is so new that it is not clear what reasonable “expectations” one should have from it. Now, as for “expecting everybody to behave”, well, even in pre-Internet times, there was no absolute expectation of it. But generally, if a person attended a meeting with the clear intention of just disrupting any serious discussion there, that person would be ejected. Nobody would say that somebody who is behaving in a manner to deliberately disrupt discussions is engaging in “free speech”.

    I mean, all of this rhetoric here about “free speech” is actually completely nutty, you know. Speaking of nutty, you have these libertarians who keep talking about “liberty” or “freedom” as the be-all, end-all value. Well, fine, but none of those people are so nutty as to think “liberty” means the freedom to… you know… “do it in the road”. Right?

    I mean, “freedom” doesn’t mean the freedom to violate every established norm of decent, respectable behavior, like, yeah, “Why don’t we do it in the road?” I’ve been thinking over the last year or two about the fact that English is the only language I know at all well that lacks what linguists call the T-V distinction, tu-vous in French or Du-Sie in German. Well, actually, strictly speaking, English does have that. The “thou” form is the old “tu”, but it’s in disuse. But there are still old school norms that prevailed until recently. Somebody (particularly older than you) that you hardly know is Mr. Smith, he’s not “John” and certainly not “Johnny”. We have these different registers of language and taking these incredible liberties with people like using the “tu” form with people you don’t even know… that’s just not done, I mean in terms of old school norms.

    These registers of speech developed and exist for some reason and it’s worth pondering why. And, yes, the T-V distinction is falling away in all the major languages in practice. That’s true as well.

    But the idea that I can write an article and sign my name to it and somebody, without even the decency of signing his name, can just show up and write a comment like: “You’re an idiot, fuck you” and this is considered a normal state of affairs because… “free speech”…

    Let’s be clear: that’s just NOT normal. Granted, you can get habituated to anything. You can live next to a sewer and eventually you don’t smell it, but this idea that this is “normal” and should be “expected”….

    But, again, the problem is the loaded use of the verb “expect”. Actually, I don’t “expect” very much out of this kind of situation, but that does not mean I “accept” it really. That’s a different matter.

    For example… My expectation is that the 9/11 criminals (whoever precisely they are) will never be indicted and all of them are going to live to a ripe old age and die in their beds. That is what I expect. But that does not mean that I accept it. In fact, I would say that if this state of affairs does not make your blood boil, then there is something wrong with you!

    So, whether I expect the situation to be much better on a discussion forum like this than it is, is really not the question at hand, I don’t think. I can find a situation utterly deplorable and rage against it, like the impunity of the 9/11 criminals, but still not expect anything better.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the rest…

    I’ve noticed that you start doing this when you are getting on shaky ground in a discussion. You start affecting that you don’t understand the other person’s arguments. I’ve come to the regrettable conclusion that this is a game of sorts. I mean, it doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, read it more carefully before responding. Or ask me to clarify…

    What Ron Unz does when he is getting cornered in a discussion is he just says that he has to get back to his software work and just walks away without ever conceding a point….

    Okay, fine, be my guest, dude…

    … whether you create an environment in which things get factually resolved

    That ain’t the half of it. The interesting questions, “Who?” & “Why?” take a lot more work and rarely yield a factual resolution.

    Well, here you’re getting further into willful obtuseness. I never said that factual resolution was the be-all end-all. NO!!! In fact, I was saying the OPPOSITE! The problem is that the factual resolution of a question is the most basic first step to get to the more interesting questions.

    So, my example of whether Toronto or Ottawa is the capital of Canada is a pertinent example. I mean, the point I was making was absolutely NOT that such a question is of any interest! Obviously it isn’t! Precisely because it’s so easily and uncontroversially resolved factually. The point is that an environment where you cannot resolve factual questions is one in which you can never get anywhere very interesting.

    A case in point would be that about 98% (roughly) of the 9/11 discussion on this site centers around just the fact that the government story is untrue. That is not a very interesting question either. Anybody with a reasonable high school education should be able to resolve that question very quickly. So, my point is that to get anywhere interesting, you have to first decide that that is factually resolved and if you can’t do that, then the conversation can never go anywhere very interesting.

    Like, take this latest brain fart article from Fred Reed. A serious intellectual venue would not publish that. It just leads to more of this going on endlessly about that the official story is obviously false, a question that should have been factually resolved ages ago, precisely so that we could get to more interesting questions. Right???

    This whole question of the rape epidemic in Europe, just as a factual question, is also of no particular interest. Already, when they tell you that hundreds of women were sexually assaulted in the equivalent of Grand Central Station and there is not a single bit of visual record, you know it’s bullshit. That should be dispensed with very quickly.

    Moreover, just common sense tells you that refugees who have recently applied for political asylum tend to have quite low rates of crime, because they don’t want to jeopardize their asylum application! Obviously! So the story doesn’t make any sense to start with.

    But now we have all the crime statistics in Germany through 2017 and there was never any rape epidemic. That is quite clear. So the question is completely factually resolved, which is necessary to get into more interesting questions about propaganda narratives and the political factions behind them.

    And that, by the way, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with advocating open borders or multiculturalism or anything. Whether this “rape epidemic” narrative is factually true is just a factual question. But my experience of this, and you were present throughout the whole thing, is that it was impossible to argue my points in a good faithed manner without getting personally attacked by a mob of idiot trolls, almost entirely operating anonymously.

    Maybe that’s not even surprising, but that the editor of the webzine took the side of those trolls against me… well… THAT is pretty surprising. I still have to pinch myself when I think of that…

    Also, that the editor of the webzine clearly thinks that it is important to dispel the “myth of Hispanic crime” in the U.S. but then believes (or affects to believe) that there is no need to dispel a very similar myth about some non-existent rape epidemic in Europe.

    Well… okay… his position is completely incompatible with somebody possessing a modicum of intellectual integrity. If it’s important to resolve factually that illegal immigrants in the U.S. are not raping women all over the place, then to resolve the same question regarding Muslim refugees in Europe would also be important. And if not, not. But surely one would have to be consistent, no?

    But anyway, to have a discussion forum based on the principle that every sort of disgusting assholery constitutes “free speech” and to have a host who observably does not possess intellectual integrity… obviously one’s expectations of such a venue ought to be quite low.

    And yeah, it could well be that one’s expectations are surpassed. Like, if you go dumpster diving, then your expectation is that you just find garbage. BUT… maybe you find some wonderful gourmet food items in good condition that somebody inexplicably threw away. And that’s great, because your expectations were extremely low and are amply surpassed. So, sometimes there are snippets of interesting, useful conversation here, but the overall level is pretty low. The panorama is quite dismal, and I have had enough of it generally.

    Actually, you are one of the better commenters here, but just in the comment I’m answering, I see clear signs of intellectual dishonesty, this attempt to manipulate the framing of questions in a dishonest way. And that’s pretty tedious to deal with. But you’re close to as good as it gets here, so the run-of-the-mill situation here engaging in discussion with people is really pretty dismal.

    Oh, final point… In the above, I did not mention Eric Zuesse at all. Your attempts to keep bringing Zuesse into the conversation is another dishonest thing you were doing, because I made quite clear from the start that I didn’t really agree with Zuesse. I was just saying that Zuesse’s misguided critique did kind of touch tangentially on some legitimate points, that’s all.

  138. Ruprecht says:
    @fnn

    This isn’t anti-feminist so much as anti-PC in general, which includes the former:

    https://theredfootedbooby.com

  139. Erebus says:

    Well… you keep using this word “expect” in a rather spurious manner.

    Not spurious by intent, certainly. I both expect to see certain types of bad behaviour in an anonymous public forum, and I accept that as part of the territory in the same way as if I were to go out in a heavy downpour without protection I’d both expect and accept that I’m gonna get soaked. How one can refuse to accept something that one expects is beyond me, and I include here your idea that the perpetrators of 9/11 will get away with their crime. That’s the world we live in.

    …we have here on a discussion forum like this, is completely uncharted waters really. I mean this kind of anonymous, disembodied communication.

    Actually, anonymous online forums are just the continuation of a long tradition. Pamphlets and monographs of all sorts from scientific to racist have been published by anonymous authors and nom de plumes over the centuries to debate controversial subjects and views. Subjects and views that could bring you in front of the Inquisition then, can today mean loss of livelihood and even incarceration.

    Touching briefly on the topic of 9/11, you say

    Anybody with a reasonable high school education should be able to resolve that question very quickly.

    The fact is that a great many people “with a reasonable high school education” didn’t resolve it very quickly, including yourself (IIRC), and there are still many who can’t. The reason they didn’t and perhaps still can’t is not because they can’t grasp high school physics, but because they can’t accept deeply unsettling truths.

    …my point is that to get anywhere interesting, you have to first decide that that is factually resolved and if you can’t do that, then the conversation can never go anywhere very interesting.

    Of course, but you don’t have to convince the whole world first, much less bring them along to get such a conversation going.

    [MORE]

    Similarly with the rape epidemic. If you were satisfied with your argument that (say) the Cologne New Year’s incident was a fabrication, you could have engaged those that agreed and gone on to explore the:

    … more interesting questions about propaganda narratives and the political factions behind them.

    There was no requirement to bring those that clung to the mainstream story with you. Instead, you thought it necessary to convince the unconvincible and the expected, if not inevitable food fight broke out.

    My point at the time was that, given that the “migrant” issue was the #1 Hot Topic of the day, your insistence that proving the rape meme false had…

    … ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with advocating open borders or multiculturalism or anything.

    rang hollow with your audience. I expected their reaction, even if you didn’t. You may not have been advocating for open borders and multiculturalism, but the topics were obviously intimately related in the minds of most of your readers, and their (not unexpected) interpretation of your thesis was that you were so advocating. Whatever you thought you were doing, they thought otherwise.

    Your apparent reluctance to move on and explore the “interesting questions about propaganda narratives and the political factions behind them” led your audience to think that your claim that it’s “just a factual question” look cowardly, if not dishonest. You simply ignored that rather obvious development, and spent your time (and 1000s of words) flinging faeces with those who rejected your proof because they interpreted it as support for open borders and multiculturalism. Not productive at all, and apparently frustrating as well.

    As for Zuesse, well you started this thread by replying to my comment to him, so he remained a part of my thinking. I agree, however, that your problems differ from his.

    As for Reed, his latest article is so bad as to make one almost think it was itself born of a conspiracy to make imbeciles of those who hold mainstream views on those subjects. Almost, but not quite. FWIW, I wouldn’t have published it.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  140. Anonymous[360] • Disclaimer says:

    How come the updates stopped at Unz Review Facebook page?

    If the current page administrator is uninterested in maintaining the site, why not hand over the duty to someone else?

    https://www.facebook.com/unzreview/

  141. @Erebus

    Well… you keep using this word “expect” in a rather spurious manner.

    Not spurious by intent, certainly. I

    Well, if you say so, fine. But the fact remains that you are continuing to make a lot of arguments that could best be described as spurious. Superficially, they sound like they make sense, but they really don’t. Take this for example:

    I both expect to see certain types of bad behaviour in an anonymous public forum, and I accept that as part of the territory…

    So, basically, you’re arguing that we should be sanguine about all the assholery on a forum like this, because it is inevitable anyway… That sounds superficially reasonable, but in reality, it just completely begs the question.

    [MORE]

    This is easy to show by considering an analogy… We live in a society in which the private automobile is the dominant form of transportation, right? So, it is inevitable that there will be traffic fatalities, right? In the U.S. alone, there are about 100 traffic deaths more or less every single day.

    The argument you are making is akin to saying that, since traffic fatalities are inevitable, we should just not be concerned about the question at all. Now, it could well be that there are no practical measures that could reduce the 100 traffic fatalities a day in the U.S. significantly. That is possible. Or it is also possible that there is a set of common sense measures that could be applied that would reduce the rate to half of that, 50 a day, let’s say. I don’t know. I’m not an expert in the question. But I would say that if there was a set of measures that would reduce the fatalities in half, that are not terribly onerous, they should be applied, no?

    Or, let’s make the thought experiment that, instead of 100 people a day dying in car accidents, the number was 1000 a day. Suppose further that there was no regulation at all, no need to pass a test to get a driver’s license. No rules about drinking and driving. No speed limits…. the rules of the road are optional…. A twelve-year-old could drive a car…. no safety inspections for vehicles whatsoever… and so on…

    In short, a libertarian paradise, right? In this world, with 1000 people a day dying in traffic accidents, would you argue that, since, obviously, you’ll always have traffic accidents, it is pointless to be concerned with this and there is no point in establishing any rules?

    You’ll never reduce the number to zero, so in that case, why be concerned at all? Besides, requiring people to pass a driver’s test to drive a car violates their freedom, which is surely a fundamental value that supersedes every other thing….

    Well… the fallacious reasoning is obvious. The fact that you can never reduce the traffic fatalities to zero does not mean that there should be no rules or regulations!

    Note again, that hard-core libertarians, as crazy as they are, are not crazy enough to make arguments like these. (Or maybe just a few really fringe ones are…)

    But you’re making the same argument in deep structure. You’re saying that because there will always be a significant amount of asshole behavior on these sorts of forums, it is pointless to be concerned about it or even to think about establishing any rules or protocols that could reduce it. Since you can’t eliminate all the asshole behavior, then there is no need to do anything.

    Now, getting back to the question of expectations, I would suggest that it actually is reasonable to expect that the authorities, a sane moderately well run society, to put in place regulations that would tend towards minimizing the number of traffic fatalities. Now, of course, you could maybe drastically reduce the number of fatalities by setting 20 mph as a universal speed limit, but that is not practical, so obviously, taking into account the various parameters and practical considerations, right? (But we understand this…)

    Now, on this particular forum, the ethic seems to be that people’s ability to say whatever they want (even totally worthless asshole shit) anonymously with zero accountability is the primary consideration above everything else. So, the anonymity you get from having a consistent handle (like you have) is not good enough. You need to be able to be Anon #137 or something. Now, that strikes me as a disposition more designed to enhance the amount of assholery as opposed to reducing it.

    Actually, anonymous online forums are just the continuation of a long tradition.

    Uhhh…. not really. If the norm was for the authors of articles here to be anonymous, you would have more of a point. But that is not what is going on here. By and large, the authors of articles are not anonymous. There are a few exceptions, like “JayMan” and a few others. There was a series of articles by somebody signing them “Charlottesville Survivor”. I am pretty sure that “Charlottesville Survivor” is some sort of Deep State shill whose agenda is to convince you that this synthetic, staged event in Charlottesville had some organic reality.

    Pamphlets and monographs of all sorts from scientific to racist have been published by anonymous authors and nom de plumes over the centuries to debate controversial subjects and views

    What you say about people writing controversial pamphlets under a nom de plume is true, but you are arguing from the particular to the general. There are precedents for anonymity, but they are exceptional cases. The point I was making stands: the general case is that people do not interact anonymously.

    In any case, it seems obvious to me that, if you want to encourage a high (or even halfway respectable) standard of behavior from people, you would tend to discourage anonymity, not encourage it. I mean, this numbered anon thing even exists to the detriment of the readability of discussions. How on earth are you supposed to keep track of Anononymous jerk #527 as opposed to #725?

    The fact is that a great many people “with a reasonable high school education” didn’t resolve it very quickly, including yourself (IIRC), and there are still many who can’t. The reason they didn’t and perhaps still can’t is not because they can’t grasp high school physics, but because they can’t accept deeply unsettling truths.

    I hope you don’t think you’re telling me something I don’t know. I agree that people’s obstacle to getting it on 9/11 (and a host of other matters) is not cognitive, but emotional. That is clear enough, I think.

    Of course, a lot of the people arguing the government official story are a different case entirely. They are just shills and professional disrupters, i.e. trolls.

    But regardless, the basic problem remains. Can you just keep going round and round about factual questions without ever just saying they are resolved? If the people who say they believe in the government story on 9/11 cannot make any argument that withstands the laugh test, you just say the question is factually resolved at some point, so that it becomes possible to get to the more interesting questions.

    AFAICS, this is just how it has to be. And the same applies to this “Muslim Rape Army” debate (if it can be called a debate),. Now, okay, one could do a post-mortem on my handling of the discussion under the article. And you could probably find that I made mistakes in my handling of the situation. Yes, arguably, you could say it was naive of me to think that, by simply making devastating arguments on a logical and factual level, I would prevail.

    But, of course, one thing that I could hardly have anticipated was that, when I came under attack from all the various yahoos, that the editor of the webzine would side with the yahoos.

    But, the problem nonetheless in all of this is that, for whatever nth order criticisms you make of me in that spot that could be valid, the fact remains is that I was upholding factual truth and the people on the other side were not.

    And that just brings us full circle to what I was saying from the start. It has NOT been my experience that arguing in good faith in a logical, factual way gets you good results here. In a more sane, mentally hygienic environment, it would.

    I do not think that such an environment is not some utopian ideal. You just need an environment based on an ethic of reverence for factual truth. As I have said, I think that this absolute emphasis on “freedom of speech” is utterly misguided if there is no corresponding commitment to factual truth. To blame me for a situation in which I come under this kind of vicious character assassination for just telling the truth about something is surely completely misguided.

    Your apparent reluctance to move on and explore the “interesting questions about propaganda narratives and the political factions behind them” led your audience to think that your claim that it’s “just a factual question” look cowardly, if not dishonest.

    Well, this is mostly just double talk, Erebus. To talk about whatever propaganda narrative, whether it is the 9/11 official story or the rape epidemic in Europe, you do have to first establish that it is a propaganda narrative in the first place, i.e. false.

    And, as for these anonymous shills, trolls, and assorted shitheads attacking me, well, that they thought that I, somebody signing his name to whatever he wrote was a “coward” is a laugh. And these people engaged in such outrageous levels of blatant dishonesty that any characterization of me as being dishonest is also a sick joke really…

    Look, there is a basic point that needs to be made about all this. The whole idea that one’s anti-immigration stance is going to be based on promulgating nonsense about non-existent “Muslim rape armies” is just ridiculous to start with. Most likely this propaganda narrative was created to discredit the ethno-nationalist position. Or if it wasn’t, that is its likely effect.

    It’s like this. I have a 14-year-old daughter and I would very much prefer that she stay away from drugs. (She has so far, fingers crossed.) But if I have to have a talk with her, I’m not going to show her some old movie like “Reefer Madness” where people take a few puffs on a joint and go stark raving mad in short order. I mean, that’s nonsense and when people see what nonsense it is, it just discredits anything you say afterwards, right?

    What do you think the net effect on marijuana consumption of movies like “Reefer Madness” really was? (I don’t know but I have my suspicions…)

    People just see that this is such overblown bullshit. Going around screaming that all these refugees from the Middle East are cutthroats and rapists when, of course, they aren’t, just tends to discredit the people purveying this nonsense, same as “Reefer Madness” claiming that you go insane from taking a puff on a joint.

    The really ironic thing about all this is that Unz understands this seemingly and that was the point of his “Open Letter to the Alt-right” or whatever telling them that they were discrediting themselves with all this stuff about a crime wave attributable to illegal Hispanic immigrants.

    Unz understands this in one context but not another. So, apparently, he does not understand (or affects that he doesn’t) that the anti-immigration people in Europe similarly discredit themselves with all the “Muslim Rape Army” BS. He ostensibly can grasp this in one context but not the other.

    Go figure…

  142. Pericles says:
    @Ron Unz

    Otherwise, please use this thread to let me know about any other software problems and/or suggestions you have.

    When editing a comment, use the existing comment editor instead of just providing the text in a box. Also, add a button to delete the comment rather than ‘delete the text and save’.

  143. Pericles says:
    @republic

    I’ve seen this a few times already, the first time, I believe, in the roaring 90s. It seems difficult to get beyond a certain level, but perhaps now the time is right. Best of luck to them.

  144. Pericles says:
    @Ron Unz

    A more ambitious item: provide an easy way to insert CSV-data and render this as tables (and maybe even graphs) into comments.

  145. Erebus says:

    The argument you are making is akin to saying that, since traffic fatalities are inevitable, we should just not be concerned about the question at all.

    Come on, Jonathan. There is no need, much less obligation, to publish a paper on Unz – anonymously or otherwise. Certainly, it’s nothing like the need to travel by road in a modern society.

    Nevertheless, your comparison may help make my point anecdotally…
    A dozen years ago, I bought a car and started driving in China. Every trip was a lesson in chaos, but I knew what I was getting into. There were de jure rules, but de facto nobody knew or followed them and the police couldn’t care less. Everything from blind drunks to drivers who simply had no idea what a car was, with pedestrians, motor/bi-cyclists, and all manner of ad hoc conveyances mixed in were wandering about on the road like 1000 free-range chickens. Lane markings, cross-walks and traffic lights were ignored like some sort of alien decorations and accidents were the norm. You couldn’t drive anywhere without seeing at least 2-3. I put >100k km on the odo in those conditions with very few casualties in large part because I accepted the situation and adjusted accordingly.

    I could have been driven around like every other foreigner in China, but I chose to drive. I’ve since moved on to driving in a slightly more organized milieu, but even back then I recognized that arguing that the Chinese driving environment ought to be different than it is (was) would be a lesson in maddening futility. I might as well rail against the standard meter for being too short.

    [MORE]

    Even today, much more advanced than a decade ago, every foreigner I know in China (dozens) gets to where they have to go by taxi or public transport despite being quite wealthy enough to buy a car. I even know 2 who actually own cars, but refuse to take the wheel themselves, getting their Chinese drivers or (on weekends) their Chinese wives to drive them. Why?
    Apparently thinking along the same lines as yourself, they can’t accept the way Chinese drive and can’t, or won’t adjust to it. Where they differ is that they don’t then rail on about it ad nauseam. Quite good naturedly, and in all modesty, they admit “Nope, it would drive me nuts to drive here” and that’s that. I preferred to get behind the wheel and take my chances, but that’s just me. You prefer to rail on, and one supposes that’s just you.

    As I did when I chose to drive, of your own volition and at considerable effort you submitted a few articles to UR knowing full well the milieu you were entering. There are other, more heavily policed forums you could have submitted your articles to. Saker’s blog, to name one, but there’s plenty of others.

    To talk about whatever propaganda narrative, whether it is the 9/11 official story or the rape epidemic in Europe, you do have to first establish that it is a propaganda narrative in the first place, i.e. false.

    I disagree in the sense that “establishing” is a long, far cry from getting everyone to agree, and making…

    … devastating arguments on a logical and factual level

    … has never been enough. Ask Galileo. Furthermore, propagandists don’t use falsity where truth better serves their interests, and they often mix the two to maximize the effect, so there’s more than one nuance to tease out here.

    Without a context for your claims, they float in the air as anomalous, unconnected entities. Intellectually useless until somebody comes up with the context that incorporates them, in the same way that anomalies in the measurements conducted by Newtonian physicists were ignored, or chalked up to error until Relativity came along and gave them a place in a new theoretical paradigm. Even then, it took almost a generation and an Einstein for the new paradigm to get fleshed out and take hold. The Newtonians who claimed that the anomalies were critical, but couldn’t themselves generate a new theoretical paradigm, were ignored along with their anomalies. Similarly, Galileo’s claims gained credence only when a new context displaced the one he had introduced his ideas into. Even more similarly, there are credibly reported anomalies that make much of current science untenable. What happens to the anomalies and those who report them is illustrative. The current paradigm continues on, and the reporters are ostracized as cranks. Twas ever thus.

    As for anonymous pamphleteering…

    If the norm was for the authors of articles here to be anonymous, you would have more of a point… By and large, the authors of articles are not anonymous.

    The historical fact is that anonymous pamphlets were most often responses to, or debated original, signed documents/statements, so your point regarding them falls flat. There were far more anonymous pamphlets published than the originals they were debating. Look into it.
    In restricted socio-political environments, anonymity allows voices to be heard that would otherwise remain in lonely silence. Some of those voices are worth hearing, some aren’t. One can focus on those that are and move on to the more interesting context, or one can rail endlessly against the ones that aren’t. Note that on the latter way lies crankiness, if not necessarily madness.

    As for Ron Unz’s views…
    My observation is that his default position is to take the orthodox view on controversial subjects. That is hardly unusual. In my experience, people like Ron tend to say little or nothing unorthodox until they’ve done the work, reached a conclusion and can generate an argument that makes a compelling case. On more than one occasion we’ve seen him do the work, take a 180 degree turn and quite fearlessly come out on the opposite side with powerful, carefully constructed arguments on the most controversial of controversial subjects.
    In the case of migrants, as a Californian he’s likely predisposed to being more interested in Hispanics than he is in Islamics in Europe. That he’s stayed with the orthodox view and hasn’t gotten ’round to investing time and energy on your favorite hobby-horse doesn’t strike me as particularly ironic, and in any case is hardly worth the number of words you’ve expended on it.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  146. @Erebus

    Come on, Jonathan. There is no need, much less obligation, to publish a paper on Unz – anonymously or otherwise. Certainly, it’s nothing like the need to travel by road in a modern society.

    You know, there reaches a point in a discussion where you just have to conclude that somebody is trying to jerk your chain or something. This is such a point.

    I thought the point I was making was obvious. I was NOT saying that writing an article on Unz is comparable to driving a car. I was simply pointing out, via the traffic accidents analogy, the fallacy you were engaging in. You were saying that all kinds of bad behavior is inevitable on a discussion forum and then, on those grounds, saying there was no need to be concerned about it or to do anything about it.

    That is akin to arguing that, since some traffic accidents are inevitable, you there is no reason to even think about how to reduce them. Why? Because you’ll never reduce the number to zero. Yeah, I suppose there’s no reason to worry about your health because you’re going to die one day anyway… And actually, come to think of it, people do make that argument. But it’s also pretty obviously fallacious…

    But you were OBVIOUSLY engaging in a fallacy, the notion that, because you can’t reduce something to zero, you shouldn’t try to do something about it.

    [MORE]

    As I did when I chose to drive, of your own volition and at considerable effort you submitted a few articles to UR knowing full well the milieu you were entering.

    Well, actually, I was not aware of how degraded an environment this was when I first contributed articles. The full horror of it became apparent in the discussion (if you can call it that) under my fifth article, which addressed these “Muslim rape mob” hoax narratives. It became quite apparent that the discussion was dominated by people who simply do not care at all about factual truth. Well, I knew there were such people, but I didn’t think they would constitute 90% or more of the people participating in the ensuing discussion. I really thought that most people, even real racial bigots, would have to accept that you can’t just go around screaming that people are rapists when they’re not! I mean, it’s getting into the most basic kinds of morality really.

    So it was, in fact, a surprise that the conversation was so dominated by moral imbecility of that type. Not just moral imbecility, regular imbecility too. The willingness of people to refuse to understand that hundreds or thousands of women cannot be sexually assaulted in a Grand Central Station setting in recent years without it producing ANY visual record whatsoever!

    So, your assertion is wrong. I knew the situation somewhat, yes, but the sheer extent of it was actually a surprise.

    As for Ron Unz’s views…
    My observation is that his default position is to take the orthodox view on controversial subjects.

    Oh, you mean, like that Betty Ong was a Black girl in her youth and then became Chinese?

    Well, okay, that wasn’t the “orthodox” view you were referring to, I assume. Now, I don’t think the notion that German girls really are getting raped all over the place by the swarthy savages is an orthodox, or conventional view in the world at large. I think the conventional view is that countries like Germany and Sweden are among the safest places in the world. All the crime statistics, equivalent to the ones that Unz likes to pore over for the U.S., bear that out.

    Well, maybe the “Muslim rape army” synthetic narrative is the “orthodox” view in alt-right circles, but there are all kinds of crazy things that are the conventional view in whatever minority settings. But, no, I think that if one was talking about an “orthodox” or conventional view on this, that would be the view that the official crime statistics are broadly correct and there is no rape epidemic in Europe. Never was. (Not since the Red Army marched in 1945 anyway.)

    In any case, you are suggesting that Unz wrote an open letter to the alt-right telling them to lay off all the bullshit about a Hispanic crime wave, because everybody knows that’s bullshit basically. YET… it never even crossed his mind that a very similar narrative about a crime wave in Europe is also probably bullshit!

    Well, basically, you’re attributing to our host a level of obtuseness, an inability to connect the dots, that I would not subscribe to…

    In the case of migrants, as a Californian he’s likely predisposed to being more interested in Hispanics than he is in Islamics in Europe.

    Well… that’s a very weak sort of argument really. I mean, it’s true that Ron Unz lives in California but the Unz Review does not reside in California. It lives on the World Wide Web basically and it is not focused in a parochial manner on things just in the U.S.

    Or, look, I live near Barcelona. A year and a half ago, when Linh Dinh was here, one of these synthetic terrorist events happened very near here, with the obligatory Muslim patsies who were killed in short order. The whole nine yards.

    For me to say that I’m only interested in that specific event because I live near where it happened (where it was staged, more precisely) and so, the Nice Truck attack or the Christmas market attack in Berlin is of no interest because I don’t live in France or Germany respectively… that would be borderline moronic. Obviously, all of these things are part of a whole.

    That you have these alt-right venues going on and on about a crime wave perpetrated by illegal Hispanic immigrants and you have a similar narrative about Muslim refugees in Germany, say. Obviously, a thoughtful person would be trying to connect the dots and wondering whether the other narrative is as false as the first one. (It is.) In fact, I daresay it’s easier to demonstrate that the Muslim rape epidemic narrative is false than the Hispanic crime narrative in the U.S. In any case, to be only interested in one but not the other is….

    But, in any case, as I said at the top of this note, we’ve reached a point in this conversation (I have certainly) where the pretense of good faith on my interlocutor’s part (by that I mean YOU) has basically melted away.

    Like, the overall argument you’re trying to make about traffic… aside from the fact that it is response to something I never really said, it’s also kinda stupid. The fact that you can’t do anything about the traffic problem — unless by some chance you are very high up in the appropriate government ministry — is not, in and of itself, a reason not to have a conversation about the problem. I mean, if you couldn’t have a conversation about problems unless you are in a position to do something about them, then just about no ordinary person could get into any political discussion, because they can’t do anything about it! There would be zero point in anybody here talking about how much they disagree with Merkel’s refugee policy or anything like that, because they can’t do anything about it so they should just shut up presumably and accept it.

    Well, it’s a kind gaslighting thing you’re doing, I guess. For whatever reason, you’re trying to spin things that I am being somehow completely unreasonable. If I say that there are aspects of this discussion forum that I find deplorable, it’s unreasonable for me to say that because (a) there will always be bad behavior on discussion forums (yes, of course, but the point is to figure out a way to reduce the amount, not eliminate it. And (b) since I can’t do anything about it, I shouldn’t talk about it. So, by the same token, you can’t do anything about U.S. foreign policy, you shouldn’t be on a discussion forum criticizing it.

    It’s these spurious attempts to portray me as somebody unreasonable. Meanwhile, our great host is an extremely reasonable man. He wants to weigh all the evidence. So he will not jump to conclusions as to whether Betty Ong was Black or Chinese in her younger days until the evidence is in, for example. (I am not as reasonable and tend to jump to conclusions on such things…)

    But I don’t know who you’re trying to sell this to. Not to me… And I’m only answering (and this should be my last response) out of a certain compulsion to respond, I guess, but probably hardly anybody is reading this discussion any more, so…

    • Replies: @Willem
  147. Willem says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I read this.

    Your word ‘swarthy’ reminded me of a talk that Michael Parenti gave in 1989, called Rambo and the Swarthy Hordes, not sure if you know the talk?

    Parenti talks about Rambo movies and the like in a similar way as you describe the Muslim rape army: a bunch of ‘unpeople’ attack the nice people who are sitting all peaceful and quiet in their wagon or cabin, because…. that is what unpeople do. Of course there is no other way for the nice people then to massacre these unpeople. The message: it is good to hate and kill unpeople if you are a nice person.

    The amazing thing is that such propaganda works.

    As for the Erebus comment: he seemed really sincere that driving on dangerous roads in China is fine because he survived the traffic when he drove there. Then he made the analogy to Unz, where commenting is also fine as long as you survive the nonsense and false propositions/ accusitions made by fellow commenters. If he really meant that, than I would conclude that he did not survive the nonsense and false propositions that are made here on a daily basis.

    I must say: reading comments and expose/ see them exposed as fallacy is amusing, but does not get you much further if you want to learn something more than how to expose logical fallacy’s. It may even make you an idiot.

    Guess that the safest thing therefore is that I should give up commenting here…

    Think I figured out my log in problem to your website. I cannot comment when opening your website from my phone, but I can open your website from my computer.

    However, since I usually read your and other Websites from my phone, not sure if I will become a regular commenter there…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  148. @Willem

    Your word ‘swarthy’ reminded me of a talk that Michael Parenti gave in 1989, called Rambo and the Swarthy Hordes, not sure if you know the talk?

    I have enjoyed listening to Parenti in the past, but no, I was not familiar with that talk. (Now I am.) It’s funny that Parenti says “Swarthy Hordes”. I said “Swarthy Savages”, which I think sounds better because it has alliteration — though not as much as “Bayoneting Belgian Babies”. (Or even better: “Bullshitting about the Bayoneting of Belgian Babies”)

    Parenti makes good points but I would say that he is far more of a doctrinaire leftist than I am at this point in time. One thing that really pisses me off about all this “Muslim Rape Army” narrative stuff is that, when I point out that these stories aren’t true, people start calling me a leftist or a libtard or any of those things. To me, the whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with being left or right or PC or not. It’s the very basic moral position that you can’t just go around screaming that people are rapists when they’re not!

    That really just gets to me. You would think that even very right-wing anti-immigration ethno-nationalist type people could at least see that you can’t just base your case on all this malicious storytelling. To me, that reflects such a level of moral decadence, that I just find utterly repulsive, so…

    But, you know, generally, there are things that aren’t left or right or any of it. Like WTC 7 falling into its footprint, supposedly from office fires. You should be able to realize that this isn’t possible regardless of where you are on some left-right political spectrum, no?

    [MORE]

    This business of the Muslim rape army there in Cologne sexually assaulting over a thousand women without a single shred of visual evidence. And these guys just adamantly refuse to understand that there is a problem with this! I guess because they get so much emotional satisfaction out of these kinds of malicious slanders that they just refuse to understand the most basic issue at hand.

    I was never what you could call an alt-right person, but all this caused me to get very disillusioned with all that. Finally, I just came to realize that these people are utterly loathsome. Okay, maybe not all of them, but in general, let’s face it… And aside from that, to be on a venue like this arguing with these kinds of people who will never concede such a basic point… it’s really just too masochistic. It’s liable to raise my blood pressure and shorten my life expectancy and it’s not worth it…

    I feel there’s a need for some sort of space in which it’s understood that people are committed to factual truth. That people are more left or right on whatever classic dialectic… that’s kind of beside the point if people don’t respect the truth!

    As for the Erebus comment: he seemed really sincere that driving on dangerous roads in China is fine because he survived the traffic when he drove there.

    Well, his “point” was based on some sort of bizarre straw-manning of what I was saying anyway. It’s nonsense every which way round. Yeah, obviously, China is a country with a lot of new, inexperienced drivers and doesn’t have the same developed car culture that there is in North America or Europe. But I’m sure the relevant authorities are studying how to improve the situation. It’s not that they say “yeah, well, there will always be traffic fatalities, nothing to be done about that, so there is no need to even think about how to improve matters. We just have to accept this.”

    All I was saying was, by analogy, there will always be asshole behavior on public forums like this, but one should still think about what could be done about it.

    Guess that the safest thing therefore is that I should give up commenting here…

    Well, I do still get sucked into it, I have to admit, but my real sense is that I should not bother. Well, on second thought, Erebus does make a valid point in a sense, that if you have very low expectations, then you won’t get disappointed, I guess. But that’s true generally in life, I suppose. But also if you drastically lower your expectations and just accept whatever shit, then that’s also what you’ll end up getting, so it works that other way too…

    Think I figured out my log in problem to your website. I cannot comment when opening your website from my phone, but I can open your website from my computer.

    I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what your problem could be. I can access it from my phone or tablet as well. I did notice that the front page can load slowly on the phone, so there is a blank screen for a few seconds initially. Maybe you have an old phone and it is very slow and you give up on it before it loads. Most likely the extremely slow loading would just be on the first page you access and then it will work okay.

    I find that it works on any device I try it on. (And I own a lot of gadgets…) If it really doesn’t work using your phone’s default browser, you could get Chrome (or Opera or Firefox or… ) on the App store and it will probably work. I can’t believe there is any insuperable technical problem. But… if your real reason is something other than that, then…

Current Commenter
says:

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 Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments 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?