The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Announcements
Monthly Fees for Heavy Users?
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Note: Any remarks regarding general bugs and suggestions should be restricted to the permanent Bugs & Suggestions thread.

As some of you are probably aware, the rising readership of our webzine led Google’s advertising representatives to contact us a month or two ago, suggesting that we begin running their ads to monetize our traffic.

I’d always been very reluctant to run advertising in the past, regarding it as too intrusive and also a waste of valuable screen-space, but I finally decided to give it a try. Numerous commenters were hostile to the idea, and since the ads annoyed me as well, I discontinued the project after a few days. Anyway, most of the revenue is generated by clicks, and I doubt that the less-than-mainstream readership of this website would have much interest in the various rather mundane services and products that seems to be their advertising mainstays.

But that experiment and the resulting discussion in the comments, led me to spend a little time analyzing our website traffic and consider other, perhaps more suitable means of having our tens of thousands of daily readers cover some of our operating expenses. In particular, I was surprised how heavily some individuals frequented our website and how much time they appeared to spending here, and began thinking that it would be quite reasonable that they should correspondingly contribute financially to paying for our various writers and other costs. But first let me recapitulate the origins of our website and its recent trajectory.

 

When I originally launched this webzine around five years ago, I encountered considerable skepticism.

My intent was to provide convenient access to a mixture of alternative perspectives drawn from both the Left and the Right. This approach was quite contrary to that of nearly all other such publications, which almost invariably focused on either one ideological camp or another, so naturally there were many doubts that such an unorthodox publication would attract any significant readership. But since my own interests and reading had always been quite varied and eclectic, I decided I might as well produce a website taking a similar approach, especially since one of my initial goals was to create a possible venue for my own future writings.

As it happened, I was preoccupied with other projects during the first couple of years after our launch and was unable to do much writing of my own, although the website and its readership grew steadily from a standing start. Then over the last two or three years, I substantially expanded our coverage and columnists, while also finally returning to writing of my own. My dozens of articles have totaled some 200,000 words, and most of these have been part of my American Pravda series, often drawing upon the extensive reading and research I had undertaken since the early 2000s.

Partly as a consequence of these factors, our traffic has grown to fairly substantial levels, now far exceeding that of various other much more established but narrowly-ideological alternative media outlets such as Counterpunch or Takimag. Indeed, to my enormous astonishment, our recent readership has roughly matched or even surpassed that of such venerable and influential opinion publications as The Nation and The New Republic, as well as such prominent newcomers as Jacobin Magazine. Twenty years ago, I had been immensely proud and gratified when one of my articles appeared as an especially long cover-story in prestigious Commentary; but these days our traffic exceeds that of Commentary by a factor of four or more.

Our webzine motto has always been to provide “Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media,” and I think we have fulfilled that mission, thereby benefiting from the growing climate of intolerance and censorship afflicting so many elements of the traditional media and even its Internet offshoot.

I think another crucial aspect of our success has been our decision to generally moderate comments with a very light hand, usually allowing discussions and controversial perspectives that would rarely be allowed elsewhere. Indeed, with more and more publications eliminating comments entirely or exercising severe censorship, the relatively free speech that we offer has become an increasingly scarce commodity.

Despite our light moderation, my impression is that we often attract far more thoughtful and substantive commenters than those of many other websites, whose threads often seem to devolve into trivialities or meaningless flame-wars. One cause of this might be the extreme ideological variety of our articles, which may irritate and repel rigid thinkers who prefer a comforting and uniform narrative of either right-wing or left-wing punditry.

I also think that the commenting system I have developed is a particularly flexible and powerful one, avoiding some of the severe disadvantages of such industry-standards as Facebook or Disqus. This framework allows threads of many hundreds of comments to remain viable for continuing meaningful discussion and debate, a situation rarely found elsewhere. As a result, extended discussions running even two or three hundred thousand words—the length of a long book—have been possible. If we exclude the doubtful or worthless commentary, what remains is often of very considerable value, with the important and detailed information in some comment-threads not infrequently far exceeding that of the original article.

And the total volume of this ongoing user-generated comment-content has been enormous. During a typical month our website averages close to 50,000 published comments totaling well over 4 million words, a figure probably far higher than that for publications with vastly larger daily traffic. In effect, our website tends to bridge the gap between a simple opinion webzine and an online Internet forum. Although many commenters leave remarks of little value, some of our most thoughtful and knowledgeable participants have produced many thousands of comments, sometimes amounting to a million words or more, a figure exceeding the contributions of most of our columnists and other writers.

Our tens of thousands of regular readers obviously benefit from this platform, but I think our writers do as well, given that we offer them a popular venue for views and ideas that might otherwise struggle to receive any significant public visibility at all.

ORDER IT NOW

The overall intent of this website was always to serve as a content-distribution channel and commenting platform. Although perhaps three-quarters of our articles and posts are original, the remaining one-quarter are republished under licensing agreements with a wide variety of different bloggers, columnists, and webzines, thereby bringing this diverse material to the attention of many individuals who otherwise would never have encountered it. Left-wingers may discover surprising or disturbing right-wing ideas, and right-wingers do the same with left-wing notions. Probably these encounters are usually fruitless and merely reinforce existing stereotypes, but perhaps sometimes they produce surprises and some minds are changed.

Most of the writers and thinkers that we feature are willing to take bold and important public positions, whether correct or incorrect, and these make it impossible for them to earn a living our mainstream “Media-Industrial Complex” of fainthearted or compromised publications, thinktanks, and academic institutions. But we provide a primary or supplementary source of income to a couple of dozen of these individuals and organizations, helping them continue their important work, which some of them might otherwise need to curtail or even abandon.

 

Over the past couple of years I’ve often been told that that our website/forum is almost unique on the Internet for the breadth and variety of the “Interesting, Important, and Controversial” material that we are willing to publish and the free-wheeling debate that we allow. At first I was rather skeptical of such flattery, but our traffic reveals some striking figures.

Many of our readers seem to spend a remarkable amount of time on our website each month, 20 hours, 30 hours, 40 hours, even reaching 100 or more hours browsing or reading our material, totals that completely astonished me.

In a few cases, these are the same commenters widely considered “trolls” and possibly even drawing a paycheck for cluttering up our threads with their nonsense. But the overwhelming majority of such heavy users seem to be fully legitimate participants. A website able to regularly absorb forty hours per month of someone’s life, let alone one hundred, must be providing unusually attractive offerings, not easily found elsewhere.

Time is a reasonable measure of value, and these sorts of totals provide a possible metric for assessing the value of the content of this webzine for such readers.

Suppose we assume that our readers could earn $10 per hour in their regular jobs. Then obviously every hour they devote to this website is costing them $10 in the time-value of their free activity, which for those heavy users might reach $400 or even $1,000 per month. And if someone seems to be valuing our content at $400 per month, I think it’s reasonable for them to pay a small slice of that amount in direct website support.

Some of these readers may be individuals living in reduced circumstances, who possess much more available time rather than money. But I think that a much larger number are highly-educated professionals, who would typically earn far more than $10/hour, suggesting that the above calculation should actually be scaled up accordingly.

The underlying principle is simple. If you spend a great deal of time doing something, then you have empirically demonstrated that it must be worth the hourly value of your time. And it hardly seems unreasonable to financially contribute a small additional fraction to help support the iconoclastic writers who are providing that service.

Restricting access to our webzine to casual or ordinary readers would defeat our entire purpose of widely disseminating important and controversial material. But I think that our heavier website users, perhaps those who spend more than 5 or 10 hours per month here, should be encouraged or even required to support it. A stepped-fee somewhere in the range of $1 per hour seems fairly reasonable, and such a figure would go a long way toward covering the payments to our existing writers, allowing for further expansion, and helping to make this website self-sustaining. I doubt that a charge of $1/hour would strain many budgets given that it’s much less than the cost of a cup of coffee or most daily newspapers.

A substantial fraction of our heavy readers are probably ideologically-committed individuals, who might welcome a chance to support writers and thinkers whose content they often admire and whose writing may rarely be found elsewhere.

Perhaps the handful of irritating “trolls” possibly employed by various hostile organizations will be annoyed at having to request an expense account payment to cover such costs, causing them to effectively subsidize the distribution of ideas they abhor and would eagerly censor. But I think they deserve such a fate, and if they choose instead to permanently depart, I doubt they will be much missed.

The exact details and payment methodology will need to be determined, perhaps involving Patreon or other similar systems as an option. But I thought I’d first open on a discussion on this general topic and see what thoughts or suggestions our readers had.

 
Hide 438 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Sasha says:

    I’m not at all against the proposed model, but I do hope you don’t mistake me for a highly-educated and remunerated professional (who is a very heavy user). I may be mistaken for one as I usually have about 5 of your pages open for future reference, saves the trouble of searching for articles of interest. Sporadically employed manual labourer, slight gambling problem, and hardly swimming in loot – that said, happy to contribute my share, as this site is without peer in my opinion, like an oasis in the internet desert.

    • Replies: @nymom
    , @Kali
  2. We poor retirees trying to beat the gobs non-inflation exorbitant inflation will have to stop reading. A shame considering it clearly IS the best site in the world.

  3. I would prefer not to pay for writers with whom I disagree or whose work I don’t enjoy. Thus, count me out Ron. I though you were rich btw and that this was a hobby.

    I propose this as an alternative. Maybe you should charge for an ad free version but let the version with ads be free. Let the customer choose is a better marketing approach it seems to me.

    • Agree: Gunga Din, jon
  4. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:

    How about Merchandising?

    Unz Shirts

    Derby mugs

    Sailer caps

  5. I’m retired. My retirement is worth considerably more than $10/month, heh, damned good thing, too. Count me in the 40 hour/month gang, easily. But a lot of that is hit and run. And I guess I comment plenty, but it can’t be too bad, I get plenty of thoughtful comments back and never flames. I can start a read, go off to bed, come back and take it back up the next morning. Does that 6 hours away count as time on the site? Should I close the tab on the article to save hours? If I do, will it still be up later? If I gotta pay, I’ll pay. But across the web, between two newspapers with paywalls (WashPost, Boston Globe) and four or five direct-to-writer tip-jars and that sort (not disclosing those, sorry), I’m in for 60 to 80 bucks a month on subscriptions on the web. Takis was a favorite, donated for awhile, then Taki’s daughter made it mandatory after a censoring routine went in, then she changed the look/format of the site and made it ever-difficult to find the content as it comes out. Throw in a 12.00/month fee to read (let alone comment) comments, censored at that, I refused. I LOVE Taki, he’s an important guy as are they all. But it’s a stickup when she’s in there censoring their comments on top of the fees, ads are worked in too. It isn’t like I’m a filth-monger. As a result, I don’t read much there anymore. Since the new format, combined with taking away the comments, I’d bet their traffic is half what it was since killing comments adding fees a year or two back. Can’t stand the new format.

    Comments, much of what I read here, are the best part. When the engineers in comments get started, when folks in the know get started, folks that have forgotten more than I’ll ever know, it gets good. It’s my only opportunity to ask questions of people that are of true brilliance and often, get a reply back. But posts get lost in the ether, get censored(me? really?) or just plain not posted for a week after they’re written, while ridiculous, ugly posts from obvious trolls roll right on in ahead of mine, again, mostly a question asked. It is serendipitous at best, but understood, given the traffic. Unz has changed many an opinion of mine the last few years, along with pointing out changing trends the mainstream won’t touch for obvious reasons. It has value. Tangible value. Individual writers, here, to the tune of 10-25/month in various contributions and campaigns.

    But man, it starts to get expensive. My web reading is starting to compete with golf, gas for the motorcycle, broads, beer, pot, lobsters and steaks. Ok, I kid because I care.

    Yeah, of course I’ll pony up. Promise you’ll never gay-up the site, Ron and I’ll pay. But there are certain others that write here, they’re going to need support too, Kersey and the rest. Also, is there a reason Paul Craig Roberts’ comments are always closed? HOW can HIS comments be closed? Lemme know,, let us ALL know, we’re gonna pay. Yall been good friends to the little people around here. Peace.

    • Agree: joannf
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Liza
    , @Bill Jones
  6. @Mutthead52

    We poor retirees trying to beat the gobs non-inflation exorbitant inflation will have to stop reading. A shame considering it clearly IS the best site in the world.

    C’mon, really? He’s probably talking a few bucks. Hell, I’d drop the Boston Globe for Unz if I hadda. Red Zone, there’s a lot I’d drop before Unz. But not women, golf, scotch or lobster. My pot is free, heh..

  7. Definitely advertising.

  8. Stirner says:

    One solution may be to monetize the ability to comment on the website.

    As you said, there are many thoughtful and devoted commenters at Unz.com.

    Perhaps instead of charging for time, you charge for the ability to freely comment on the site.

    Give all commenters the ability to leave one comment on an article. However, if you want to make multiple comments, you need to be a “subscriber.” This way, casual readers and commenters are not impacted, and it is those who find the site most engaging that are hit up for a subscription.

    For 5 bucks a month, I think even casual commenters would subscribe. This site gets better as time goes on, and has evolved into a must-read for wide swaths of the Dissident right.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Craig Nelsen
  9. anon[604] • Disclaimer says:

    How about pay per comment like some israeli newspapers do?

  10. anon[666] • Disclaimer says:

    An anonymous tip jar might work better than a mandatory fee. Alternatively, perhaps granting donators a special privilege like 1) writing an article of the month for your website 2) upvoting article visibility on the site, etc. might work. Several commenters here have their own blogs, so incentives geared toward that demographic might elicit funding. Also, you should probably consider an anonymous donation service using cryptocurrency. Paypal and other services are vulnerable to leaks — probably employee over hacks — even if they don’t deplatform you first. The Ashley Madison service, an adultery promotion website, was once hacked and lots of embarrassing information came out on some people. I could easily imagine the ADL or CIA arranging the same here.

    • Replies: @idrankwhat
    , @Lot
  11. surly says:

    A mandatory $5,000/month subscription for AaronB and Mr. Holohoax should chase them off. If they bite, at least it would cover the hosting expenses/annoyance they generate.

  12. iffen says:

    You have created something that is unique.

    I don’t think that you should screw it up by taking my advice.

    • LOL: Lot
  13. Philip Neal says: • Website

    Thirty hours a month spent visiting this site may seem remarkable, but I suspect that it is more a measure of time spent on the web than time devoted exclusively to this site. If, like me, you have 10 or 20 sites which you read daily and where you sometimes comment, you probably visit them all for an hour an evening concurrently, in the sense that they are all open in your browser and you switch to and fro from one to another. (A worthwhile comment is best drafted as a text file and re-read twice along with the content it refers to before posting.) I could well believe that I spend 30 hours a month reading Steve Sailer and occasionally commenting, but I also spend the same 30 hours reading numerous other sites in the same way. If I gave $1 an hour for each site on which I spend at least an hour a day, the total monthly cost would easily be in four figures. I beg you to rethink your financial model.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  14. I am very surprised that 40 or more hours per month is that uncommon. I’m feeling a little self conscious because I must blow past that mark every month easily, and I still manage to leave a fair amount unread. Wanting direct payment is fair enough. However, I am pretty averse to the metering idea wherein on receives a bill for x-number of hours used. I work a real time desk and often set down my smartphone (with Unz.com open) when things get busy while still having the site open, but I may not pick my phone back up for an hour, sometimes many hours. Would I be charged for that time? Same goes for reading the Unz review while a game is on TV or some similar situation. I leave it open and read during the breaks. I would certainly have no objection to a monthly fee or membership of some kind. This website is a highly prized feature in my life, and I strongly agree about the value added by the many highly intelligent, thoughtful commenters. There is really nowhere else to access such material. Reddit may have literally only one or two valueable, “Unz level” comments in 10,000, and outside that, what is there? Libertarian facebook pages, foxnews.com? It gives me a nightmare just thinking about it.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  15. Tom Verso says:

    “Many of our readers seem to spend a remarkable amount of time on our website each month, 20 hours, 30 hours, 40 hours, even reaching 100 or more hours browsing or reading our material, totals that completely astonished me.

    What the hell does this mean? When I come to the site you know who I am? You can identify me? I know you are a computer wizard; but this worries me.

    “Suppose we assume that our readers could earn $10 per hour in their regular jobs. Then obviously every hour they devote to this website is costing them $10 in the time-value of their free activity, which for those heavy users might reach $400 or even $1,000 per month. And if someone seems to be valuing our content at $400 per month, I think it’s reasonable for them to pay a small slice of that amount in direct website support.

    “The underlying principle is simple. If you spend a great deal of time doing something, then you have empirically demonstrated that it must be worth the hourly value of your time. And it hardly seems unreasonable to financially contribute a small additional fraction to help support the iconoclastic writers who are providing that service.

    What about readers who spend time reading because they don’ t have a job?

    Having said that, I would be glad to contribute on a monthly basis, but anti-geek that I am, I am not comfortable with on line payments. I went to you Patron (sp?) link but I got clammy hands and ran away.

    If you accept a check, provide the payee name and address and I will put one in the mail in the morning.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  16. A123 says:

    It is certainly something to consider. The people who post here frequently are likely to kick in some money to continue doing so. Key things to consider:

    — Avoiding the *perception* that commenting has a “pay-to-win” aspect.
    — Maintaining the rate of new viewer/joiners to the community.
    — Additional cost for customer service (subscribers who become locked out, etc.). Overhead could chew through modest amounts of money raised.
    ____

    Something else to consider. How much does even small amounts of money influence human behaviour?

    I seem to recall a great deal of discussion related to big pharma where even generic, box-lunch sandwiches had an impact on prescription decision making.

    I do not believe that small fees would change the character of the site. However, there is risk that will be difficult to anticipate/predict.

    PEACE

    • Replies: @iffen
  17. jsigur says:

    One dollar an hour would get me rationalizing myself away from your site. My income is at the poverty level, so much so, that I qualify for a medicaid supplement to my medicare thus making my health costs very close to free.
    Beyond that, I ran a website, blindlight.org, for five years and never charged my readers a cent. Clearly, we can not use the Jewish system for defining success. Money in the west is controlled in unsupervised fashion by Jews. IT is Jews that are close to redefining the world into one global entity.
    They are largely behind the west’s technical success taking the economy from agrarian to corporate over the last 500 years. Railroads wouldn’t have been built without Jewish money and willingness to finance these huge projects. The price is that Jews rule by deception. They’ve been doing it for so long, most of us just assume it’s human nature to lie to those you serve (or supposedly serve)

    Ppl don’t write these articles that question the deep state with the expectation to get rich and if they do, they too are likely deceivers against we the ppl

    I would suggest you get your authors to write for free, as I ran my website for free, as I spend hours looking for stuff so I can be aware of the latest or next psyop bound to hurt most of us while helping
    them, my time and effort without compensation beyond expanding my mind

    If you absolutely must charge, let me recommend everyone get on auto-pay and pay a dollar a month (or more if they wish). I can do that and won’t miss it and if all did, I imagine it would be quite a bit. Certainly, have a way to introduce new ppl with say, the first ten articles free with the knowledge that a person can use VPNs and new aliases to access your content if they must.

    I hear you are rich. If you are, I would suggest that you cover website costs yourself and don’t pay for articles. WE are all conditioned to obsess on money and we need some money to survive but this website is here, I assume, to re-enable liberty, it’s an altruistic endeavor and it won’t happen over night as creating this mess has been a multi century effort
    We are at an immediate disadvantage if we start adding money into the equation, since our access is limited and theirs is unlimited
    Just my two cents
    Blindlight – jsigur

    • Replies: @jsigur
    , @getaclue
  18. @anon

    Monero (http://getmonero.org) is one of the most private cryptocurrency options. I’d be more comfortable subscribing to the site if you accepted payment in Monero. The less paranoid could pay in Bitcoin. Globee.com is a payment processor that facilitates Bitcoin and Monero payments.

  19. stevecel says:

    Nobody wants their payment information connected to this site. Come on. Get with the times, Mr. Unz. Boomercore ideas like subscriptions are not going to do it.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
    , @joe862
  20. Rebel0007 says:

    Ron,

    The Unz Review webzine is without question providing a valuable contribution to America. As you may realize, I am new to this forum and my personal reasons for use of this site are simply voluntary civic duty, for it is my personal belief that people must be informed and participate in a democracy. There is probably nothing more dangerous to democracy than uninformed and misinformed citizens and voters.

    If you are of the opinion that certain commentors are trolls, it would be helpful if you were to define exactly what you consider to be a troll.

    My personal preference would be for advertising rather than an hourly fee.

    Thank you for the webzine.

    • Agree: Brás Cubas, Jim Don Bob
  21. Machbet says:

    Ron,

    I have followed your site from its inception and have used the resources here many times, particularly the archive of articles you host. I know I don’t have to tell you but I’m gonna anyway: your archive is a gold mine on the internet. It is unmatched in worthwhile content, unlike so many sites which host a mountain of crap for readers to sift through. What you’ve created, my brother, and your escalating viewer numbers prove it so well, is a magnificent library for human souls who are seeking to remember just who they really are.

    You, dear sir, are an incredibly important part in the awakening of humanity on Earth. By offering all that’s here for our human sisters and brothers to read and ponder, you’re helping to accelerate our arrival to the ultimate goal of knowing that we’re immortal, spiritual beings who will soon be freed from a terrible, lower dimensional prison.

    Embedded within your website, Ron, is a deep spirituality that touches all persons who visit here and from the essence which resides here, an enormous boost is being given to the collective consciousness of our human family. Your work and your site are far, far more important than you might think, my brother. They’re priceless.

    Trust me when I tell you, the spiritual realms are exceedingly impressed with what you’ve done and are damn happy you’ve engaged in such a difficult venture. Your work and effort, along with that of so many other writers featured here, have been noticed by those who matter the most and the gratitude you’ll receive from them will be beyond anything you can imagine.

    Money is essential but it’s also damned evil. It’s necessary but it always leaves stains. Please don’t make it a part of your sanctuary on the web, Ron. What you’re doing here is a gift to humanity. And trust me… Heaven knows.

    Machbet

    • Replies: @Wally
  22. Tusk says:

    I agree with anon666 at #10 that some form of free donation option, for those who sporadically feel like donating, would be one great option that I think would draw some funds. But I do think that some monthly fee of maybe $20-50 for those who really want to support (the heavy browsers/whales) but it is hard to balance a fee without providing something extra, not that people do not already receive the content for free but that when one pays extra they are going to want to receive extra from what they originally had. I don’t think letting commentators be highlighted as SPONSOR or something is a good idea because then people start appealing to the authority of their status instead of their argument/reputation.

    My suggestion would be perhaps a private forum for paying commentators? A more private place for people to discuss free form ideas and share more off-topic stuff freely that keeps out those who comment in bad faith or are just here to disrupt. This just provides an expansion of the commenting system which is an obvious draw to the sight, while not affecting the ‘free’ version at all.

    Anyway that is my two cents on the issue. As a heavy user (since I browse whilst working) I would be happy to support the site that keeps me going during my monotonous day.

  23. Tusk says:
    @Tom Verso

    Ron added this address in the last open-ish thread on suggestions

    The Unz Review
    555 Bryant St. #371
    Palo Alto, CA 94301

    as a mailing address, I believe it was to facilitate the mailing of cheques, so hopefully that is the case. Perhaps Ron or another commentator can confirm/remember if UR will accept cheques through the mail.

    • Replies: @Tom Verso
  24. jsigur says:
    @jsigur

    Let me add that I do feel that writers should not moderate their own articles often making comments closed. That should be a condition expected by the site. Some ppl are super paranoid, others may have JWO standing they wish not to endanger and may believe banning comments makes them safer.. At the least, it would add to the site professionalism not to allow individuals to control comments or the like.
    Personally, A co-op operation would be fairest for all (I have offered my availability with no response) Money too easily takes the place for personal commitment and I believe personal commitment is necessary all the time, money can just as easily be a distraction as an aide and again, (((they))) control it

  25. iffen says:
    @A123

    The people who post here frequently are likely to kick in some money to continue doing so.

    I’m going to pay to argue with these mo-rons? Don’t bet the rent money.

    • LOL: Denis, TWS
  26. Anonymous[406] • Disclaimer says:

    [Mr. Unz knows who I am]

    Of course, it is very reasonable to make readers/users pay for the privilege of accessing and using this unique site.

    One would hope, however, that established platforms such as Patreon will NOT be used as the EXCLUSIVE means of payment. Exclusive use of Patreon would expose UNZ.COM to tacit blackmail. Checks, money orders etc. should always be accepted, even if that involves higher handling costs. (Personally, I would rather pay, e.g. $45 by money order rather than $40 through Patreon.)

    From memory, Patreon has de-platformed several content providers – after benefiting from their offerings for considerable time – as part of some PC initiative, probably sponsored by the usual billionaire-funded front group.

    Also, it should be made as easy as possible to give a subscription (e.g. for one year) to someone else as a present, along the lines of a gift card.

    Another thought – rather than or in addition to charging by use volume, perhaps the site could set up a Platinum User category. Platinum users would, e.g. have access to blogger and columnist content one day earlier than Economy users.

    Speaking of Platinum – I would certainly pay good money to ensure that my visits are NOT tracked by Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. This means NO “social media” buttons, no usage statistics gathered through Google, no other tracking etc.

    As a Platinum PLUS feature, selected users could also be given a means of sending “private messages” as on some message boards. However, such a feature would also present major opportunities for abuse, especially in the hands of organized trolls.

  27. I’m good with flat fee $5-$10/month. More than that is beyond my budget. This is the only comment I ever intend to make. TKO.

  28. Anonymous[406] • Disclaimer says:

    A stepped-fee somewhere in the range of $1 per hour seems fairly reasonable, …

    The amount does not seem unreasonable per se, but there are some other considerations:

    (1) Users will think in terms of other subscription services, e.g. XFINITY, Netflix, etc. Although the comparison is unfair, the proposed rate seems high when viewed in this light.

    (2) As noted above, users like to feel that they are purchasing an ASSET for their subscription fee. Thus, fees should not be charged by the hour, because that would encourage users to cut down on use. It would be much more motivating to let users purchase, e.g. an unlimited Platinum membership for, e.g. $40 for three months, with the option of automatic renewal. This “Platinum Membership” would feel much than watching the fare meter tick away in a taxi.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  29. g8way says:

    If I make $10/hr, then reading is costing me $10/hr and I expect the content to be worth that much to me. If I have to pay even more, then the content will need to be even more valuable to me. I have no objection to ads, especially if paid subscribers don’t need to see them.

  30. anon[541] • Disclaimer says:

    and such a figure would go a long way toward covering the payments to our existing writers, allowing for further expansion

    Why does Unz review need to be “expanded”, how many more “revisionists” and professional antisemites (along with the occasional Stalinist and Maoist) are there to be published? They’re all writing essentially the same things, no need to add more of them.
    And imo most of your writers shouldn’t be paid anyway, given the low quality of their content.
    Charging frequent users strikes me as an insane idea, it’s sure to have a negative impact on the few parts of the site (the comment sections of Sailer’s and Karlin’s blogs, where at least a few commenters aren’t total nutcases and sometimes provide interesting views/information) that offer at least some value.

    • Agree: Alfred, iffen, AltSerrice
    • LOL: Mike P
    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  31. I get real value from this site and a Patreon type fee is appropriate.

  32. Sasha says:

    As an afterthought to my previous comment – how would this affect the sharing of articles on FB or elsewhere? Would they be paywalled? I refuse to read paywalled sites, as the odd good read is not worth it considering the sheer volume of crap that usually dominates them. I think it’s of paramount importance to be able to freely share the gospel found here, and a paywall would do this site (and the ideas found here) a tremendous disservice.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  33. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Can’t you people ever leave a good thing alone without trying to suck every penny out of people.

    • Replies: @Durruti
    , @Tono Bungay
  34. nymom says:
    @Sasha

    Well I am on a fixed income and I do contribute to some of the commentators individually. Additionally I contribute to various causes off of this website.

    But I also work p/t for my daughter and am about to get my Christmas gift/bonus so while I planned on giving some of it to individual commentators here, I do think I should contribute to the overall website as well.

    I guess I have to ask how it will work exactly…

  35. Quality porn 20 hrs per month at $20 -$50
    Quality mind porn 40+ hrs per month at ?

    Yes, count me in for a yearly fee but only via bank check through the USPS. No PayPal and keep the advertisement away. I too like the idea of a gift certificate.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  36. Tom Verso says:
    @Tusk

    Thank You

    Yes I hope ‘they’ provide a specific statement about checks e.g.

    “Yes we accept checks. Please make them out to ‘xxxx’ and mail to ‘yyyy’

    That would work for me.

  37. nymom says:

    Additionally we have to be careful about donating thru the internet to various causes/webpages.

    Also, do I really need my bank to know that I contribute to various writers/causes etc., I am located in New York and have to be careful…

    Now I use my Facebook for family contacts and photos, so again, do I need to broadcast to my family what causes I donate to…

    Let’s think about this for a bit…

    • Agree: atlantis_dweller
    • Replies: @Liza
  38. getaclue says:
    @jsigur

    I think a $1 a month is doable….

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  39. So, you will let a suggestion from Google set you down a path to destruction of the (considerable non-monetary) value of your site? Or so you say.

    You’re supposed to be smart. And honest.

    I will miss your site. It really did present ideas and knowledge difficult to find otherwise.

    Sorry to see it end thus.

  40. jpp says:

    I’d be happy to print out some paper form, to write my unz username / unz email on the said form, then to send the form in with some yearly subscription value appended in the envelope as dollar bills. Quite, frankly, however, I don’t want my real name, as revealed by credit card or check, to be associated with the Unz review in any way, or to have my name sitting in some database on some server in a way that could potentially link the real me with my Unz comments. Even the email I type in to the comment form is an idiosyncratic fake, which I utilize as a password each time I comment. I hope this doesn’t seem pusillanimous, but the sorts of conversations we have at Unz could easily be career destroying for many of us, if publicly revealed. I’m proud to read and contribute to Unz, and to work towards actuating my political beliefs in private but tangible ways in real life, but I prefer to be anal about concealing my identity.

  41. Micropayments for commenting using Bitcoin via the lightening network (e.g. Bottlepay).

    Give people a few comments a day for free, then make the wordy ones cough up.

    I suspect you have the chops to analyze the comments & frequency, and what you might be able to charge based on that.

  42. Biff says:

    Although many commenters leave remarks of little value,

    I’m trying my best, and I’m now going to night school to broaden my intellect(I have doubts).

    Being bi-polar sucks/it’s awesome!

    • LOL: iffen, RadicalCenter, Liza
  43. @On Your Left

    Quality porn…

    Preferences are highly individualised, but ‘quality porn’ strikes me as an oxymoron. (I’m not anti-porn),

    … 20 hrs per month at $20 -$50

    I keep forgetting that there are still people who pay for things like porn, movies, and stuff like HBO/Hulu/Netflix/Apple+ etc[1].

    That’s kinda bizarre.

    Not as bizarre as people who read newspapers, but still pretty bizarre.

    [1] I pay in the pain from knowing that I don’t get to see each episode until well after it’s over… it can take as much as 20 minutes for episodes to be available on P2P networks.

    Discovering that you’ve magneted the version of South Park that thas the swearing redacted should entitle the victim to reparations.

  44. I wholeheartedly endorse the hourly-fee model – it will encourage me to download the archive, and to waste less time writing comments when I’m all hopped up on espresso.

    Depending on how you’re analysing ‘engagement’ (i.e., time spent on the site), you might find that people spending a lot of time on the site are doing so in a context where they’ve got a tab open while they’re doing other things. In that context, 100 hours a week is not remotely implausible.

    A javascript check of .hover() (and perhaps something that fires on document.onmousemove ) would get past that, but could be disabled pretty trivially.

    One thing that would be awesome would be some expansion of the functionality in comments – some additional tags (or markdown) so that comments could be better structured: things that spring to mind are –
    • superscript/subscript;
    • unordered lists; and
    • a wider range of HTML special characters (for example I’m pretty sure that “& inf ;” – i.e., ∞ – doesn’t work)…

    Lemme check:

    • forall: ∀ or alternatively ∀ (I can use ∀ unicode)
    • is in: ∈ or alternatively ∈ (I can use ∈ unicode)
    • therefore: ∴ or alternatively ↀ
    • approx. equal: ≅
    • subset: ⊂

    In a just world, all comment systems would be required by law to have LaTeX (or MathJax); there are some things that take too long to say in words.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes_fan
  45. Lot says:
    @anon

    Brave Browser is gradually implementing a crypto called Basic Attention Token to allow for micropayments to websites. You can also “earn” them by watching ads and spend them to purchase ads for your business or to give a site a micropayment with every access.

    Most crypto is a scam of some sort, but I highly trust Brandon Eich, who ran Mozilla/Firefox before he was SJW mobbed.

    https://basicattentiontoken.org/

    If you want to experiment with micropayments, that would be my suggestion to look into first.

    And for desktop use, Brave Browser is basically better than Chrome and Firefox and Edge unless you’re a power user with a bunch of scripts and addons. When I help my older relatives without good tech skills with their PCs, I switch them to Brave Browser just because adblocking also blocks virus ads and other issues. If you end up pushing users into Brave Browser, I think you’ll find they end up grateful for the push before long.

    As for Patreon and Google, there’s a high probability that any effort you put into implementing their stuff turns out to be a total waste when they block you. Patreon was sufficiently censorious that at some point a far right alternative called Hatreon was set up.

    Bigger picture: a mild paywall and charge per comment isn’t a bad idea. But there will be a traffic hit. Comes down to if your site is activism, a hobby that makes a bit of money sometimes, or business venture.

    Making a reasonable effort to turn a profit could be good for taxes too. If your expense is 100k a year now, but next year is 100k with 25k in revenue, then the 75k loss can be a tax deduction worth 25k off your taxes. So your 25k revenue actually has 50k in value.

    • Replies: @Brown boi
  46. if Wally

    and Tiny Duck will pay,

    so will Haxo.

    how about charging 1 cent per comment/word?

    Haxo now owes Ron a dime. That

    I can do.

    • Replies: @Wally
  47. Saggy says: • Website

    This is a really great idea …. the hasbara will have easy access to the cash, and the independents will say to hell with it …. we can get rid of the cranks and make the comment section wall to wall hasbara. I’m definitely for it.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  48. Thomm says:

    White Trashionalists, the primary readers here, are avowed socialists, and hence expect to be able to have things for free. There is zero chance of getting subscription monies from them.

    If you disagree, then prove my wrong by trying out a subscription model.

    • Replies: @Druid
  49. RudyM says:

    Many other commenters have made some crucial points I won’t repeat regarding the difficulty in getting an accurate measure of hours of use.

    There is no way I could afford an hourly use rate.

    I’m not sure you actually understand how difficult it is for many of us economically. You might want to remind yourself of how many people are struggling economically in this country. I feel no guilt making free use of services such as this website given how little I have materially, and given the (largely health-driven) limits to what I can do about that.

    I guess if necessary I’d be willing to pay what I pay for my monthly Spotify subscription (which I am pretty sure I use for many more hours per month than I use unz.com).

    A fair amount of Unz Review material–I don’t know the exact percentage–is also available in other places. Among other things, unz.com has become a one-stop source for that material (not that I was regularly reading all those sites prior to exposure to this site, but I was at least reading some of them, if only occasionally). Unz.com is pretty unique in what it offers under one roof, so to speak, but it is not the only place to find valuable alternative takes on current events, recent history, political theory, and so on. If I had to go back to relying on a bigger patchwork of websites, I could do that.

    If UR is becoming too successful, something which you seem to have been happy about in the past, then I am willing to go elsewhere, maybe read more books, maybe read more academic journal articles, etc. Maybe that would be a good thing! Often, the longer UR essays leave me with an even longer reading list than before.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  50. Why not ask Sheldon Adelson to sponsor the UR?

    • LOL: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
  51. Ron Unz says:
    @Jim Christian

    I can start a read, go off to bed, come back and take it back up the next morning. Does that 6 hours away count as time on the site? Should I close the tab on the article to save hours?

    The time estimates are based on Google Analytics, and I’m sure their system assumes you’ve left the website if you don’t take any action on a page you have open for a few minutes, so a page left open for 6 hours is probably recorded as something like 3 or 4 minutes. Just out of curiosity, I checked and you’re only a moderately heavy user of this website, nothing like some of the visitors I was describing.

    Just to give everyone a sense of what really shocked me, I discovered that some of the heaviest users seem to be visiting thousands(!!!) of our web pages each month. I’d assume that’s mostly casually browsing around, then eventually finding an article or thread of interest and reading it carefully for quite a while. But it seems to me if people think our content material is worth 100 hours per month or more of their time, it’s only fair that they start contributing.

  52. Ron Unz says:
    @Stirner

    Perhaps instead of charging for time, you charge for the ability to freely comment on the site…However, if you want to make multiple comments, you need to be a “subscriber.” This way, casual readers and commenters are not impacted, and it is those who find the site most engaging that are hit up for a subscription.

    I’m vaguely considering something along those lines, but much looser and more generous.

    For example, some MSM websites give visitors access to 5 or 6 “free” articles each month, before they’re required to buy a subscription. I’d be inclined to give readers access to something like 100 or 200 website pages per month, after which they’d be increasingly “encouraged” to get a subscription.

    Perhaps such heavy users who refuse to buy “subscriptions” would then be restricted to just one comment per day or one comment per article or something like that.

    So the only users impacted would be heavy readers who were ALSO regular commenters. If someone visits 500 of our pages each month and likes to leave lots of comments, it’s kind of ridiculous if they refuse to pay anything for the privilege.

    • Replies: @JasonT
    , @RadicalCenter
  53. I had suggested advertisements, but I have another suggestion for the case there is resistance to them from some users. Put up two versions of the site; one of them running advertisements and another one charging fees; you may name them Unz and Unz+ respectively.

    After a period of time running both versions, you may assess the relative traffic and revenue on each version and decide whether you want to keep them both or to extinguish one of them.

  54. I don’t know whether I would be considered a heavy user, but I would be willing to throw in $10 per month.

  55. Ron Unz says:
    @Philip Neal

    Thirty hours a month spent visiting this site may seem remarkable, but I suspect that it is more a measure of time spent on the web than time devoted exclusively to this site. If, like me, you have 10 or 20 sites which you read daily and where you sometimes comment, you probably visit them all for an hour an evening concurrently, in the sense that they are all open in your browser and you switch to and fro from one to another

    That’s a perfectly valid concern, but as I discussed upthread I’m pretty sure Google Analytics is smart enough to ignore the time you’ve spent on a page that’s just been left open. And checking your numbers, you don’t seem all that heavy a user of this website. By comparison and without mentioning any names, there are some commenters who visit thousands(!) of our pages each month, and seem to spend 20x or 30x as much time here as you do. They’re the ones I’m talking about.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  56. Tusk says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, out of curiosity could you please check my numbers and see if I am one of these heavy users? As I’ve mentioned before I read at work, so I am able to spend a lot of time here, but I am curious to hear if users are spending even more time then me.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  57. Ron Unz says:
    @hangthelobbyists

    I am very surprised that 40 or more hours per month is that uncommon. I’m feeling a little self conscious because I must blow past that mark every month easily, and I still manage to leave a fair amount unread. Wanting direct payment is fair enough. However, I am pretty averse to the metering idea wherein on receives a bill for x-number of hours used…I would certainly have no objection to a monthly fee or membership of some kind. This website is a highly prized feature in my life, and I strongly agree about the value added by the many highly intelligent, thoughtful commenters. There is really nowhere else to access such material.

    Thanks for the very kind words. I’m not actually planning on any sort of hourly rate-system for the reasons you emphasize, but some sort of subscription model instead. I had just mentioned the hour totals because they were what so surprised me, and because I think they provide some reasonable basis for the value of the website.

  58. Ron Unz says:
    @Sasha

    As an afterthought to my previous comment – how would this affect the sharing of articles on FB or elsewhere? Would they be paywalled?

    That’s a very important point. As I emphasized in a previous comment, even some sort of “soft paywalling” wouldn’t kick in until a user had visited something like 100 or 200 pages per month. So if someone saw a piece linked on FB and came here, they never would encounter any sort of barrier.

    And if they liked the webzine enough to read 100 or 200 pages, perhaps at that point they might be willing to pay something.

    • Replies: @Sasha
  59. Ron Unz says:
    @Tusk

    Ron, out of curiosity could you please check my numbers and see if I am one of these heavy users? As I’ve mentioned before I read at work, so I am able to spend a lot of time here, but I am curious to hear if users are spending even more time then me.

    Sure. You’re a pretty heavy user, but nowhere near the top. Quite a few others seem to spend 2x or even 3x as much time on this website. As I said, I was totally amazed how much time and how many pages some people were visiting. And some of the heaviest users were the sort of annoying “trolls” everyone else would like to banish, so maybe this will help achieve that.

    • Agree: Tusk
    • Replies: @Brown boi
  60. Ron Unz says:

    Quite a few of the commenters expressed serious concern about what might happen to them if they were somehow discovered to be reading or contributing to this “highly controversial” webzine.

    I can certainly understand their fears, but I think they may be mistaken about the political dynamics of the situation.

    Back a couple of weeks ago, the SPLC and the MSM launched a ferocious attack against Stephen Miller, a top Trump advisor. One of their leading accusations had been that he had read and distributed a couple of Steve Sailer posts originally published on this website. Yet the writers went to *extraordinary* lengths to avoid mentioning this website, and instead focused all their attacks upon VDare, which had merely republished the Sailer columns.

    Some of you may have already seen it, but here’s the lengthy comment I left at the time providing my explanation of that seemingly strange anomaly. I think it’s worth repeating in this context:

    ==========

    Just as might be expected, the whole SPLC attack is “guilt by association,” and Ctrl-F reveals a full 14 references to VDare, with the website characterized in very harsh terms. Yet although there are several mentions of Steve and his writings, there is absolutely no reference to this webzine, despite being Steve’s primary venue.

    Offhand, this might seem extremely odd. My own guess is that much of the material we publish is 10x as “controversial” as anything VDare has ever run, and many of my own personal articles, including those that have spent over a year on the Home page, might be up in the 30x or 40x potency range. Moreover, I think our traffic these days is something like 10x that of VDare, seemingly making us an extremely juicy target.

    Now admittedly, I don’t know that Miller fellow, but the horrifying VDare post that Miller supposedly shared was actually republished by VDare from this website. And that would surely have made it very, very easy for the SPLC to use the connection as a opening to begin cataloging the unspeakably horrifying list of transgressions we regularly feature, easily expanding the length of their attack on Miller by adding another 6,000 words. Yet the silence has been totally deafening. Puzzling…

    Another curiosity is that my own regular email distribution list includes at least a hundred or so reasonably prominent mainstream journalists, academics, and public intellectuals whom I’ve known, and seemingly not a single one of them has seen fit to “blow the whistle” on the dozens of horrifying articles they’ve received over the last couple of years. Puzzling again…

    Here’s my own hypothesis…

    As everyone knows, there are certain “powerful groups” in our society that so terrify members of the media and political worlds that they receive the “Lord Voldemort Treatment,” with mainstream individuals being terrified that merely speaking the name would result in destruction. Indeed, the SPLC is one of the primary enforcers of that edict.

    However, my theory is that even those dread Lord Voldemorts greatly fear an even more dreadful Lord Voldemort of their own, namely this webzine. The SPLC writer knew perfectly well that mere mention of The Unz Review might ensure his destruction. I’d guess that the ADL/SPLC/AIPAC has made this prohibition absolutely clear to everyone in the media/political worlds.

    To some extent, I discussed this phenomena in a couple of pieces last year, primarily focused on the ADL:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/has-the-adl-gone-into-hiding/

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

    One way to test my hypothesis would be for some of the readers here to contact that SPLC author and bring to his attention the contents of five or six of my most controversial articles, thereby seemingly providing him material for a long series of follow-up pieces.

    My guess it that the resulting SPLC silence will remain deafening…

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/splc-tars-stephen-miller-with-guilt-by-association/#comment-3555705

    ==========

    I think the bottom line is that the ADL/SPLC/AIPAC groups are absolutely terrified of this website and have issued a joint edict that its existence must never be mentioned under any circumstances, even in hopes of destroying a top Trump advisor.

    Now if the MSM can’t mention this website, it can’t attack or demonize this website.

    And if this website can’t be publicly attacked or demonized, how can any ordinary person get into serious trouble for contributing to it? I really doubt that any of you are as tempting a target as Trump advisor Stephen Miller…

  61. @RudyM

    If UR is becoming too successful, something which you seem to have been happy about in the past, then I am willing to go elsewhere,

  62. @Ron Unz

    I’m in! Whatever. They can’t do anything to me they haven’t already done, reading/supporting Unz certainly won’t escalate the process, heh..

    Any chance comments to Paul Craig Roberts will ever open? What’s the deal with that?

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
    , @Kali
    , @iffen
  63. MBlanc46 says:

    Paying for access might negatively affect contributions to individual contributors (I’m thinking first and foremost of Steve Sailer, who is the person who drew me to the site and brings me back every day).

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  64. Sasha says:
    @Ron Unz

    That’s good – thanks for clarifying, and my apologies for not noticing that in your previous comment. Whatever route you take, I’ll be along for the ride. Best!

  65. JHB says:

    I appreciate the concern.

    I do not want to be known as a financial contributor here. I do propagate the better ideas published here–I had thought that this was the payback for which you had hoped, Mr. Unz. I have not commented here for years.

    I would hate to have to decide between financially supporting a site publishing Holocaust revisionist history or forgoing the chance to see the amazing range of generally unpublished and ignored issues of our 20th Century history and our 21st Century reality.

    Thank you for considering my position. If you close a paywall, thank you for having made my life better.

    • Agree: Dtbb
  66. anon[604] • Disclaimer says:

    Pay per comment! (that’s two for me today).

  67. And then you’d have their personal and financial information on record. For a site like this. Is that information always going to stay with you? Who else has access to it? For how long?

    Yeah, no.

    I’m sure Pfizer could make a tidy sum running viagra ads or whatever on here instead.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  68. Let the commenters pay a fee per comment.

    Here are the advantages:
    *It provides revenue without reducing the ability of the site to reach a growing audience.
    *It discourages over-commenting, or at the very least it transforms serial commenters into financial patrons.
    *It discourages trolls.
    *The comment sections are a very important draw for this site, and on the whole are sometimes more informative than the article/essay.
    *People can read articles/comments without paying; the casual user is unaffected.
    *You won’t have to worry about people associating the products or services advertised by Google with your own site or any of the authors published here.
    *If desired, you can give recognition to the most significant patrons in this way by publishing their handles (if they wish)

    The comments can be sold in bulk in the form of passes. There could be, for instance, a 10 comment pass, a 50 comment pass, a 250 comment pass, etc. They don’t expire, or have long-dated expiration to encourage repeated buying. Larger passes might also be sold at a slight discount to encourage bigger sales.

    • Replies: @g b
  69. FvS says:

    I don’t know about heavy user fees, but putting your Patreon on the front page with a little blurb about supporting free speech might help.

  70. Anonymous[833] • Disclaimer says:

    I think I see lots of evidence among the comments made by readers that a great many of them are retirees, probably on a very modest fixed income like myself. Certainly this seems true over at CN where many commentors bring up their own biographical circumstances. They visit this and other such sites rather than watching TV or golfing. I certainly would not put up a pay wall if you want to keep up the magic of this experiment. Go to ads if you must, but please, no pop-ups or auto-play nuisances.

    I wouldn’t mind answering some brief survey questions like You Tube oft times poses. In fact, researchers might use such a thing as an effective tool in gleaning information about opinions and attitudes your readership possesses. It certainly would help better characterise your readership, which must be worth something… to the social sciences if not to entrepreneurs. Before you know it, you’ll have both the DNC and the RNC using such surveys as a tool to reach those voters who read UR. Or, maybe they will discover that both ends of the political spectrum hate their collective guts.

  71. @stevecel

    Subscribing is being set up to be victimized. Anonymity and encryption, not something one gets combining WordPress and Patreon. Vanity publishing, the idea of it extended, call
    ed “readers” in the article would make for taxing the commenters on top of stealing their content.

    Be a man, and come up with the raw statistics that lead you to this money-making scheme, dear Ron. Is your goal to alter society in a meaningful way, then go the other mile.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
    , @peterAUS
  72. @PetrOldSack

    We remember Ron mentioning in one of his comments evading answering “who are your sponsers”, as “Haha, it is not that costly to run a webzine …”. The arrogance accruence over these last months is deafening. By the way, comments on this thread to not appear at the commenter history.

  73. @Jim Christian

    Since authors have to moderate their threads PCR probably hasn’t got the time for that.

  74. Biff says:

    Well, considering The Unz Review is about the best there is when it comes to the broad content or full spectrum verbalism resulting in ‘one stop shopping’ or ‘getting it all in one place’ ,so I tend to use it quite often as a reference, and therefore I’m in for whatever it cost.

    PS
    Do you take Thai Baht?

  75. – They’re starting to charge an entrance fee to Speakers Corner on the www.

    – Free speech ain’t free.

    – They’re going to start charging us for spying on us and collating data from us.

    – Those who spend the most time on UR earn the least or nothing at all as otherwise they’d be out
    working and earning.

    – Online payments – increased doxing risk.

    -Postal payment – far more work for RU to process as can’t be automated.

    – Some authors get paid by the CIA anyway.

    – Andre Vitcheck must have the highest expenses of all the authors with all the frequent
    intercontinental travel he does yet has the least readers and commenters. Who’s paying?

    I Hate the Internet
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27071393-i-hate-the-internet

    • Agree: Durruti
    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  76. I’d vote for advertising. I don’t find ads that annoying except for those sites that are constantly pushing video ads down the pipe and crashing Web access. (I don’t know why some sites are so much worse than others in that respect — different ad providers?)

    I suspect that quite a few of us are retired. To be sure, it makes a big difference whether a monthly fee is $5/month or $30/month.

    One point I have not seen mentioned is dealing with the spouse’s response along the lines of “You’re paying for what?”

  77. Alfred says:
    @Anonymous

    As a programmer, I congratulate you on your way of handling numerous lengthy comments. I suspect that you went back to old-fashioned programming – that you are not using database tools like Oracle much.

    I am in Eastern Europe. I have had bad experiences with existing websites that claim to help men find wives. It is largely an expensive scam. As a result, I am working on my own version which will be very different – with no censorship. The girls will get half the revenue each generates. It will be largely self-correcting and will use automatic-translation. This vastly reduces costs and complexity. I hope to have it ready in 6 months.

    I don’t want to use Google’s Adwords and similar as I have proof that their claimed clicks bear no relationship to actual site visits. P&G and all the others are fully aware of this. But it seems that billionaires are not allowed to criticise one another. Everyone must support the BS or they get kicked out of the club. 🙂

    If you Mr Unz had a link to a page dedicated to websites that support you financially, that would interest me very much. I suspect readership is of the right calibre for my purposes.

    My other suggestion is to reflect on the possibility of having multilingual support. I am sure there are a lot of non English-speakers who would love to read the articles.

    Commenting in other languages is another level of complexity IMHO. Please look at the website http://www.voltairenet.org for some ideas.

  78. Kali says:

    Dear Ron,

    I competely understand your need to raise revenue and have been expecting some changes on your website because of this. I imagined that this may come through advertising. (I missed your short experiment with google ads you mention above) which I wasn’t looking forward to but which I’d rekuctantly accept as a price to pay for access to such varied, intelligent and thought-provoking content (including from many commentors).

    My own situation is somewhat unusual, probably placing me in a tiny minority of less than 1% so certainly I don’t expect you to make any decissions based on my circumstances alone. I write the following for your consideration only.

    Over 8 years ago, for several reasons, from ideological to spiritual, I, with some trepidation but with absolute conviction, exited “mainstream society” and emarked on a journey which entirely challenges conventional western ideology and demonstrates that life outside of the prescribed socio-economic structure is possible, and even highly personally rewarding.

    However, there are certain drawbacks and restrictions involved in my chosen lifestyle, all of which are financial.

    There are certain philosophies and codes by which myself and my husband live: buy when you have to, give all you can, for example, or take only what you need, give all you can. To this end we spend a considerable amount of time helping our (predominantly elderly) local community here in the mountains of central Portugal, on their farms. (“Progress” has resulted in the exedus of almost all younger people to towns and cities whilst the elderly struggle to maintaian their pastoral and agricultural traditions.) We work for our friends and neighbours for free, simply for love. We refuse offers of monetary payment (some things are simply too valuable to attatch a financial penalty to) but then we are generously supplied with substancial amounts of fresh, organic produce of all kinds, and even with a small parcel of land which we cultivate and live on with our cat and two dogs.

    Of couse we can’t produce everything we need ourselves and are forced by the current socio-economic paradigm to engage in commerce – we produce our own energy, for example, but cannot (at the moment anyway) make batteries within which to store it (though within a few more years we may well be storing energy in compressed air tanks ifvthings continue moving in the right direction).

    We have a very small income of 230 Euros per month (my husbands war pention) which pays for those things we can’t produce ourselves (pet food, bottled gas, tools, internet, COFFEE(!)… etc) but have almost no room for manouver financially speaking.

    The Unz Review is, for me at least, the best website I know. The broad range of viewpoints, ideologies and topics, excellent columnists (excluding Patric Cockburn, who is a shill for the political “elite”) and bloggers along with some very thought provoking and intelligent commentors makes this site an invaluable resource for anyone who has maintained the ability to think for themselves, despite the efforts of the establishment to stupify individuals and populations!

    If my access to the content you provide were to be restricted because of my lack of ability to pay it would be a great loss to me personally. Not that I expect you to continue to provide this service for free! – I may have dropped out of “the real world” as many mistakenly call it, but I certainly understand the way that world opperates. You have costs which need to be met. Simple.

    Might I suggest (with no idea how feasable my suggestion might be!) that rather than introducing either a paywall or google ads, you consider more selective advertising? I.e. selling advertising space to producers and service providers outside of googles sphere.

    I realise that such a move would entail adding another tier to your oganisation (you’d need someone to sell that advertising space!). But maybe that’s not entirely beyond the realms of possibility?

    It would be a great loss, not only to me personally, but to so many would-be readers who are only just beginning to realise that the world they inhabit is premissed on one huge, manufactured lie after another.

    What you provide here gives people an oportunity to see beyond the lies and to begin making properly informed choices and decissions.

    With much love and gratitude,
    Kali.

  79. Alfred says:
    @Ron Unz

    I discovered that some of the heaviest users seem to be visiting thousands(!!!)

    I suspect it is a computer program that is downloading your site for storage and searching. Someone wants to monitor the comments of any user on your website. Comments can be matched with a real person as they can get the email address. The idea that “they” have no key to HTTPS is ridiculous IMHO.

    I have done something similar. I have a database with 20,000 pretty ladies looking for a partner. This allows me to do searches on my PC for a lady who is allegedly 25-35, a teacher, lives in Odessa and has one kid. After a few seconds, it opens the browser with all the appropriate ladies, their small photo, a link to their profile on the web and a link to their expanded photos which is also on my PC. A real jaw-dropper of an application. 🙂

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  80. Kali says:
    @Sasha

    I’m in a similar financial position and use this website in a very similar way.

    You’re right, it is an oasis in a rapidly expanding dessert! 🙂

  81. Kali says:
    @Jim Christian

    I remember reading in one of Pauls articles that he prefers comments to be switched off because he simply doesn’t have the time to read and respond to them all (UR isn’t the only website that republishes his articles).
    You can comment on his articles on his own website though.

    Insidentally, he is amongst my favorite contributers to this website. 🙂

  82. iffen says:
    @Jim Christian

    What’s the deal with that?

    He won’t tell you.

    Roberts used to have a comment section and unlike some of the other writers he couldn’t just ignore or not read the comments and really got inflamed and discombobulated by some of the comments. He must have given Unz the choice between his writing or the comment section and Unz chose his column.

    Hubbub over the comment section is why Unz red tagged Peter Frost.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    , @Sean
  83. Ron, supposing a high percentage of the heavy users are commenters, you could try incentivizing voluntary support by giving those that sign up for, say, a $10/mo or more autopay some sort of indicator, analogous to the blue-check of twitter, that would provide the user a measure of credibility (& status I suppose) as a supporter of the website.

  84. Miro23 says:

    The conclusions of this article seem like a reasonable solution to the problem but it’s not so clear how it would work technically.

  85. You have created the most intelligent website on the Internet and it is a true pleasure reading the ideas of your brilliant writers. But remember — much of the energy of this site is generated by your intelligent readers. Your writers are actually drawn here because they know their ideas will be devoured by thoughtful minds. I know you have to pay the bills and you need money like everyone else, but please don’t over-reach. As a matter of fact, I would strongly encourage suggested donations rather than fees. There are some among us who have the means to underwrite the entire operation and may feel an obligation to step up, while others can’t afford to pay anything.

    • Replies: @mark green
  86. Brown boi says:
    @Lot

    This + allowing people to mine you crypto would do more than ruining your site by charging money.

    Brave Browser also has Tor built in

    • Replies: @Lot
  87. Anon[378] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s not my fault I don’t have anything valuable to add to the comment thread. Ezekiel Emmanuel will probably use that info to off me when I turn 75.

  88. I am always impressed by The Local. Some articles, that seem to be most valuable (“Eleven things to do before buying an apartment in Sweden”), behind the paywall. Others are advertorials, which are very informative by themselves (“The guide to Swedish banking for foreigners… If you have further questions, contact This & That LLC, a company specialized in helping expats, at this email address.”). Most of the free stuff seems copy/paste from global news agencies, or translations from local news agencies.

    That being said, I never paid for anything, except FT and WSJ. But FT and WSJ help me make money. I am not planning on buying an apartment in Sweden just yet. So I wonder how many people would value Sailer’s guide to latest events in black-dominated sports, or Karlin’s review for Pokemon movies (or was it Star Wars?), to more than zero, based on value created.

    Personally, I think there are people better trained, and who make better products, in entertainment, where I would put Unz Review with its powerless boomer rantings. Those professionals would have the first shot at my money, as soon as torrents and Livemotion disappear. Somebody already mentioned Netflix being cheap, and that’s perfect entertainment for most of the UR readers. For every thousand comments on the beauty of Ava Gardner, there’s zero comments on populares vs optimates.

    I wish I could classify UR as proper comments on the news, but the writers would need to be more authoritative than the current crop. It’s common that UR commentards complain about The Economist’s power, and that is the sort of authority that UR lacks. You don’t see TE commentards complaining, or even mentioning UR.

    It’s only partly due to the unhealthy themes (“blacks are bad because low IQ makes one mean”, “Jews run the world because the have yuuuge brains”, “hands off my Medicare”). There’s a lack of editors rephrasing stuff for the masses. There’s a lack of marketing through the right channels. If you want a product that makes money, you need to invest in the usual stuff that publications usually invest in. You can’t just fiddle with WordPress code, and get a bunch of marginals to provide content.

    Because the internet is overloaded with edgy marginals with modest writing skills, using better platforms. But at least Reddit does not want my name and address, in order to have a list ready for whenever the police will round up the next list of idiots who assume free speech exists.

    • Replies: @Jett Rucker
  89. joe2.5 says:
    @Ron Unz

    And if this website can’t be publicly attacked or demonized, how can any ordinary person get into serious trouble for contributing to it?

    Those readers / commenters who most need to keep strictly anonymous are probably the really solvent ones, ie not retired, or anyhow with something to lose in the way of source of income. Malignant entities that are in the unmasking or punishing business won’t do that in public if the subject is vulnerable to attacks other than defamation; defamation isn’t the most appropriate punishment anyway for “ordinary persons”.

  90. BuelahMan says:

    Like every (and any) other site that would make such a change (paywalls, etc), I would just go away.

    Not that it really matters.

  91. I notice for now, anyway, the site isn’t HTTPS. Not complaining, but if there was an enterprise server with secure connections, it would be excellent to put the dough directly into the kitty. But if they decide to de-platform, Ron’s right back where all the rest wind up, in the dustbin.

    Maybe the Bigs read what we write looking to see who knows what and where they are? Maybe that’s how Unz stays on when sites of lesser inquiry were killed. Wanna bet Boeing officials didn’t read the monster thread on the 737Maxx? They better have, it was filled with pilots, engineers, some retired out of Boeing, plain old engineers of every stripe, software, aviation, none of them adraid for their jobs, speaking honestly, something they could NEVER do from within anywhere anymore’ It was the greatest collection of brainpower in a comments section in the history of the web and I would know, I helped build the god damned thing. I brought the circuits that brought the evil from the very start. I knew it was on when they started FTS 2000, oddly enough in the early 90s, what I think of as The Great Connecting. But the 737Maxx thread was epic, a fascinating read. I wish I could find it again. I lose things that take place months before.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  92. Sean says:
    @iffen

    Peter did a paper along with the late Professor Henry Harpending and Ron critiqued it mercilessly in a series of comments. As Peter recently told me “I don’t mind negative comments in an academic debate. The only exception would be a debate where the other person keeps repeating a criticism that I have answered and creates the impression that I have never addressed the criticism. I also dislike debates where the playing field is not even, i.e., the other person has a disproportionate ability to retaliate.”

    Ron did not like Peter terminating his ability to make comments on Ron’s website, that I dare say Peter felt were repeating a criticism he had already answered. Peter felt that given new laws in Canada where he lives, he needed to have authority over everyone’s comments because he would be held responsible for them.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
  93. Big Daddy says:

    Allow a limited number of ads. A fee will greatly reduce viewership. But then i am Mr. Cheapo.

  94. TheJester says:

    The Unz Review is without question one of the “headiest” opinion sites on the Internet. As a measure, one cannot fully comprehend much of the content without a dictionary. [!] Indeed, a year perusing the content on the Unz Review can be likened to earning a master’s degree every year for the knowledge and insights available … with the comments often just as valuable as the articles.

    My thoughts: Whatever model that Ron chooses to generate revenue to financially support the Unz Review has to be relatively lowcost on a per capita basis and simple to understand and implement. High cost and/or a “Rube-Goldberg” arrangement will without question drive people from the site.

    I’m one of those people who spends about 100 hours a month on the Unz Review … 5 AM to 9 AM most mornings. I’m retired, so a high access cost could drive me to other “heady” sites.

    This hasn’t come up but it is worth mentioning. The worst-case scenario for producing revenue would be a paywall. A paywall would kill the site. People like to investigate and “play” with a blog site before becoming a committed user who is enticed enough to pay for it. Whenever I run into a paywall, I tend to move on. There are plenty of interesting and useful blogs on the Internet that do not have paywalls. A paywall is asking Internet surfers to buy “sight unseen”.

    My votes:

    1. Open access to users to read the content and comments in order to entice users to the site and the dialogue. Let’s say $10/month for full access, which includes the right to comment and download Ron’s banned books and other content as users are drawn further into the site and its content.

    2. I agree that there should be a limit to the number of comments a reader can make on a given article. Some commenters appear enthralled “at the sound of their own voice”.

    Aside: I’ve noticed a marked decline over the years in the quality of comments as the number of users accessing the Unz Review has exploded. Cost of “doing business”? I take this to be the result of younger people joining the dialogue that brings with them their more cavalier approaches and habits for punctuation, paragraphing, spelling, acronyms, trolling, quibbling, and ad hominem replies as they digitally interface with the world.

  95. Ron Unz says:
    @Jim Christian

    But the 737Maxx thread was epic, a fascinating read. I wish I could find it again. I lose things that take place months before.

    These are probably the two from March that you were remembering, which together ran over 200,000 words:

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/boeing-737-max-an-artificial-intelligence-event/

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/boeing-737-max-the-upgrade/

    Frankly, I don’t know much about aviation, so I didn’t read the comments, but from what you’re saying, many of them were quite knowledgeable.

    And here’s the entire Boeing Topic page, which is easy to access from Articles in the top menu.

    https://www.unz.com/topic/boeing/

    I do think our commenting software is far better able to handle very long threads than almost anything else on the Internet. When I’ve sometimes visited other websites, their threads seem to become almost unusable after 100-200 comments.

    • Agree: Sean
  96. @MBlanc46

    MBlanc, I agree with your parenthetical sentiments on Steve Sailer.

    I send a bit of money to Steve every year (anonymously, under my handle), and 99% of my time spent browsing and commenting at UR is at iSteve.

    Ron, is there a way ‘certified’ (by handle) heavy traffic contributors to Steve can be exempt from a doxxable UR subscription model? If not, I for one am fine with you running all the ads you want to the defray the costs of running the Unz Review.

  97. @Ron Unz

    how can any ordinary person get into serious trouble for contributing to it? I really doubt that any of you are as tempting a target as Trump advisor Stephen Miller…

    The main concern would commenters having their PERSEC compromised by linking a real name on a payment to a pseudonymous handle with a comment history. It’s not about fearing the ADL and SPLC, it’s about hostile anons (antifa, whatever) taking a stolen ‘encrypted’ list and doxxing the Unz commenter in real life, targeted to his or her personal and professional acquaintances. As you can imagine, that could be real trouble.

    Also, see my comment here:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/monthly-fees-for-heavy-users/#comment-3595148

    • Replies: @flashlight joe
  98. iffen says:
    @Sean

    Perhaps I shouldn’t have been, but I was surprised, given his comments in this thread, that R. Unz puts as much value on the comment section that he seems to.

  99. Ron Unz says:

    In glancing over this thread a little, I noticed something interesting…

    When I checked, many of the commenters who seem sincerely concerned by the ill-effects of some sort of “paywall” on themselves or others are actually the sort of users who would be almost unaffected by it.

    As I mentioned above, what I’m leaning towards is something based upon the number of pages visited. Perhaps the first 100 or 200 pageviews each month would be completely unrestricted, but above that you would be required to pay a fee or else have your commenting sharply restricted.

    The only people affected would be those who visit a very large number of pages AND leave endless comments. And frankly, quite a few of those are annoying trolls whom I’d anyway like an excuse to finally eliminate. Maybe these changes wouldn’t generate much revenue, but if they got rid of various longtime trolls, they’d certainly be worth it.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    , @FKA Max
  100. @Anonymous

    merchandise
    Don’t forget dog chew toys!

  101. @Ron Unz

    Doesn’t the controversial contents of your site scare away advertisers?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  102. Durruti says:
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    Can’t you people ever leave a good thing alone without trying to suck every penny out of people.

    Agree.

    Helpful suggestions.

    1. You might get a Loan from the Rothschilds, through one of their Banks (Hmm!).

    2. You might $charge the Writers for the privilege of having their articles published.

    3. You might advertise crap (diapers, incontinence products, anal butt plugs).

    This attempt ‘to make this website ‘pay for itself,’ ie. earn a profit$$’ by billing the commenters- so to speak – IS THE DEATHNELL of a nice Controlled, Phoney, so-called ‘alternate-Media’ website. This attempt is overdue. What kept you so long?

    I apparently owe you a debt of gratitude for your refusing to publish my articles.

    Do any of the commenters believe the Zionist Overlords would tolerate an actual-legitimate alternate-Media website?

    Here come the Moneylenders!!! They’re still doing business!

    The Zionist Oligarchs are omnipotent. They killed the Kennedys, Malcolm X, MLK, Lennon, the sailors on the Liberty, those on 9/11, and have butchered millions – worldwide. They control Nations & their Governments, and they control ALL the ‘information’ and entertainment media.

    This website is being rolled-in. Now you must pay, to be recorded and have your addresses placed on a list!

    We Americans are being made to Pay for Our Own imprisonment, and for Our Own Execution!

    *The struggle will be long and hard. But, there is resistance, and that resistance will continue.

    Merry Christmas!

    Durruti

    • Replies: @Kali
    , @Commentator Mike
  103. Truth3 says:

    In a few cases, these are the same commenters widely considered “trolls” and possibly even drawing a paycheck for cluttering up our threads with their nonsense.

    Simple solution… let’s recruit a team of Vikings, that will attack the village of the Trolls (Tel Aviv) and carry off the gold there.

    All in favor vote ‘Agree’.

    Done. Next problem?

  104. Truth3 says:

    As to Trolls being the heaviest users… you undoubtably know they would simply game the system by being multiple sock puppets… ala Franny the bitch becoming Linda Rice & Beans when the counter heat she generated made her attempt a new cover.

    See again… Franny the Bitch…

    https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.ecp_4ZyPezw78S7fqNTauwHaGb&pid=Api&P=0&w=208&h=181

    A rose by any name…

  105. @TheMediumIsTheMassage

    I would imagine that almost all of us regular readers and commenters — like everyone else in the USA under, say, age sixty-five to seventy — have given our personal contact and financial info to other companies and institutions online, often more than a dozen. Who here hasn’t done so anywhere online?

  106. Truth3 says:

    Notice how the obvious Jew commentators are frozen in their jocks at the thought of being charged.

    Here’s why…

    Dollars are more valuable than shekels.

    It would cost them dollars, they earn shekels.

  107. Liza says:
    @Jim Christian

    Re: Takimag.

    Since the new format, combined with taking away the comments, I’d bet their traffic is half what it was since killing comments adding fees a year or two back. Can’t stand the new format.

    Can you really blame Takimag for removing the comment section? I can’t. I would estimate that the majority of the comments were flimsy and insubstantial, like children hurling hurling things at each other in the sandbox. However, I would not be surprised if you were correct in saying that their traffic is down. The new format is kak, unfortunately.

    As to unz.com, I am amazed at how voluminous this site is, at the mixture of mostly weighty and (a bit of) borderline-silly in the articles. About comments, it is a good place to get things out of one’s system (has anyone’s mind really been changed on firmly-held opinions?) and therefore contributes to readers’ happiness. You can put me down for a few $$$. It’s not about whether Mr. Unz is rich or not, it’s about gratitude. Money is an expression of that. I’d be interested to see how collection of payment is going to be structured, though.

  108. The only reason I have not yet contributed is because Patreon was my only option. I’m not very computer savvy and have bad experiences with them in the past. I don’t like being a free rider and hope that you would consider other options, such as Subscribe Star or directly from PayPal.

  109. Liza says:
    @nymom

    Also, do I really need my bank to know that I contribute to various writers/causes etc., I am located in New York and have to be careful…

    I’d go for a Box # where we can send an envelope of cash to.

  110. Well, some of your content is looonnng. Sometimes it’s too long.

  111. @Ron Unz

    I have no problem with a reasonable monthly fee, but, if I’m charged by the hour, that’s too Big Brother for me. I hope it never comes to that, as I wish to continuing reading here as much as I want to. Many, I think, would wind up leaving.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  112. For comparison, the LA Times charges $249 per year for a daily online news site plus 4 days/week (thu-sun) of an actual newspaper. And we all know that isn’t the same information we get at Unz.com.

    Kicking in $50 per year each for a few good online sites, for news, entertainment, and political discussion, seems like a good idea and worth the cost.

    As to ads, I especially do not like ads which interrupt my reading by covering what I am reading or re-arranging the screen info to insert the ad. This would cause me to give up on the site. Adds on the side which do not interrupt reading are bearable.

    I prefer the donation route and I am an old timer who pays by check, so make donations obvious and easy.

  113. Mr. Unz, I’m a frequent reader of your fantastic website and would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of running it. One concern is if the pdf books count as website time for which one would be charged. Obviously, it takes much longer to read a book than a few articles, so I think it would be unfair to charge readers for that time spent on the site. Especially since Charles Dickens isn’t getting any financial support and the books rarely generate any comments.

  114. GeorgeD says:

    Dear Mr.Unz,

    Your webpage is very good and I have learned a lot from it. It is, in fact, quite extra-ordinary and, along with The Saker and Lew Rockwell’s constitutes, for me, the most valuable source of information that I find on the Internet having to do with such topics as are treated therein.

    I am probably one of the ‘heavy’ readers — I read it every day. Sometimes there is hardly anything that appeals directly to my interests, sometimes a lot.

    What I have to say, here, is a comment on “Comments”.

    I am against them and hate them. I have learned that looking at them is a waste of time and an exercise in futility, and along ago ceased to even bother checking them out. In my view, giving readers the opportunity to comment is a very bad idea. True, some of what is said is insightful and intelligent. 98% of it, on any and all websites, is drivel.

    From the very first, starting many years ago, I was struck by the poverty, stupidity, vacuousness, and gratuitous nastiness of what commentators wrote. There is something about the web, the keyboard immediately under your fingers, that encourages and facilitates empty knee-jerk reaction. The people who comment do not turn their words in their mouths seven times. They impulsively vent their ire and frustration, to what effect? A good example is the comment immediately above mine.

    I know nothing of what is involved in administering a page such as yours. Cost, server space, etc. Is it really worth it? Isn’t your time better spent not reading all of that? Do you really believe that an Online-Forum format is of value?

    You invite and host writers whom you believe have something valuable to contribute. Why not let them just have their say and leave it at that.

    There is already so much information out there, who has the time to read comments on comments. It becomes an infinite regression into nothingness.

    If people feel so strongly about a subject that they are irresistibly impelled to comment, let them put up their own webpage.

    In my view, a comments section is valuable only if the people posting are intelligent, well-informed, knowledgeable, and have thought about what they are going to say beforehand. Clearly, this does not apply to 98% of comments.

    In Saker’s Cafe-Thread you have people writing poems, broadcasting their religious beliefs, telling you they got up at 7AM that morning, sharing with you their existential angst… That’s server-space, isn’t it? It has to be paid for, does it? (I really don’t know about these things). And he wants support from his readers… OK, not unreasonable, but do I have to pay for his commenters, or yours?

    For me, The UR is so terrific that if it comes down to having to pay, I will, but, yes, I will be annoyed by the fact that part of my contribution will be going to support Comments.

    John Dryden said it best:

    But far more numerous was the herd of such Who think too little and who talk too much.

    Thanks for reading me.

  115. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    I like fees for heavy users. I might even be one (but I doubt it).

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  116. Sean says:
    @Ron Unz

    My own guess is that much of the material we publish is 10x as “controversial” as anything VDare has ever run,

    Controversial in the sense of touting conclusions reached in apparent violation of customary conventions for the assessment of hypotheses, such as saying there is no doubt but Israel did 9/11 believing their country would not survive unless Palestinian suicide bombings ended, so (in addition to their wall) Israel got Saddam toppled by by framing Saudi Bin Laden who was in Afghanistan. Also, three decades before 9/11 Israel had done the Kennedy assassination to have a nuke to guarantee its survival forever after with. This is a series of desperate gambles and contingencies that no one realised existed at the time, and might be worth contrasting with some analisis by Martin Van Creveld

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/for-anyone-interested-it-is-a-must/ When the time came for the state of Israel to be established it found looked for, and found, support in the Kremlin. Almost to a man, Israel’s founders were immigrants from Russia whose views on society and the economy were not too different from Stalin’s own—one Mandatory British police officer who interrogated Yitzhak Ben Tzvi, later Israel’s second president, called him “a perfect Bolshevik.” For that reason, but also because the dictator saw Israel as a lever with which to force the British to evacuate the Middle East, he supported it. By way of Czechoslovakia he even supplied it with arms; but for which the nascent Jewish State, laboring as it did under a U.N embargo, might not have survived. What finally terminated Soviet support for Israel was the outbreak of the Korean War. As Slezkine does not say, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion worried least it might lead to a world war and thus to the severance of the country’s lifeline in the Mediterranean.This caused him to put his support, for whatever it was worth, firmly on the American/Western side.

    In 2003 0n VDare, Robert Locke advocated using lethal force to move the West Bank Palestinians into the country whose passports they travel abroad on (ie Jordan), and approvingly alluded to the prospect of following this population transfer with expulsions from the West.

    Ron, nothing you propose is as objectionable as Locke’s plan, but his rationale is as firmly based as can be. You, on the other hand, seem to be more and more an inverted pyramid thinker of a type you could not have been when you achieved business and political success others can only dream of and befriended similarly accomplished people who obviously still have a great deal of respect for your abilities. Maybe you are overdoing it with the one man army coding marathons, you do not seem to sleep a lot judging by the administration on the website. Social cognition and ability to detect conspiracies may be being affected, eg a deficit of REM sleep is known to make it much tougher to pick up on nuances.

    The apex of the afformented upended pyramidal thinking I see is that, yes your website is not being attacked, which may be an indication that the mainstream and SLPC types who work with them are afraid of drawing attention to you because they fear increasing the success of the website, but the much smaller clandestine ‘they’ you are accusing– of mass murder– could use more direct measures to discredit the site’s thesis about Israel and elites. They would not ignore a growing threat indefinitely and when the readership exceeds big mame mainstream outlets they would act. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as I gave examples of in a comment you found hilarious. But ‘they’ if they exist, would clip your wings somehow. ‘ They’ would not just go away because you cease being free. No Ron Unz no unz.com.

    This must sound like a “King, look into your heart” type ploy, but if you literally mean what you write why would you not fear that eventually the subtle games would be dispensed with a direct measures against your personal well being, credibility and wealth would become inevitable. Maybe your investments will go sour and that will given you confidence in the literal truth of all the American Pravda writings. John McAfeelost almost his money, and I think it was because he was having too much fun to care he was losing touch with reality. Anyway, do think this is a great website on balance, and a lot of the AP ideas (Asian quotas for one) are sound.

    • LOL: Lot
    • Replies: @utu
  117. GeorgeD says:

    Correction:

    Some people had their comments published before mine. As I was writing, the comment just above mine was #109. That is what I was refering to.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  118. Jett Rucker says: • Website
    @Dacian Julien Soros

    Because the internet is overloaded with edgy marginals with modest writing skills, using better platforms.

    Is this a sentence? How are your writing skills?

    I will/might/can/should use such free-speech opportunities as I can (still) find.

    They’re dwindling, for sure.

    • Replies: @Dacian Julien Soros
  119. @Jett Rucker

    That phrase got split from its first half by a mistakenly inserted period. That being said, at least I am not asking you to pay for my edgy writing.

  120. @Ron Unz

    LOL. I noticed the same thing.

    Certainly I must be a heavy user. I already contribute via Patreon — and will gladly continue to do so. Nobody here has any good reason to complain about what you are doing or suggesting.

    I donate to Steve Sailer too, for the following reasons:

    1) He asks for donations.

    2) I read him the most and comment the most on his blog.

    3) He provides numerous ways to donate, so I can find a method suited to me.

    Steve was the gateway drug that got me here. Indeed this is like an addiction for me. Sometimes I try to spend less time here. If those drops in page views or time are noticeable, please understand that they are for my own good! I need to sleep and work sometimes.

    Thank you, as always, for this great public service. It is a privilege to participate.

    I encourage others to contribute financially even if they are not required to.

  121. Ron Unz says:
    @Jett Rucker

    I like fees for heavy users. I might even be one (but I doubt it).

    LOL. You’re not even remotely close. Quite a number of users seem to be visiting 50x or even 100x as many of our pages.

    The pattern of discussions on this comment-thread seems rather clear. Almost all the legitimate users who seem seriously worried about being “dinged” with a payment fee are the ones who have absolutely nothing to worry about given their pattern of usage. Meanwhile, the “trolls” seem totally shameless.

    The more I think about it the more this seems like a really great way to finally get rid of so many of those annoying trolls without overly offending “free speech principles”…

    How many of the legitimate users of this website really visit 500 or 1000 of our pages per month?…

  122. Ron Unz says:
    @Liza

    Can you really blame Takimag for removing the comment section? I can’t. I would estimate that the majority of the comments were flimsy and insubstantial, like children hurling hurling things at each other in the sandbox. However, I would not be surprised if you were correct in saying that their traffic is down. The new format is kak, unfortunately.

    Well I very rarely visit Takimag myself, but their traffic does seem to have dropped by 50-100% over the last year or two according to standard measures, and is now perhaps 20% of ours.

    In occasionally browsing around different websites, I’ve noticed an interesting pattern. Some websites attract reasonably long and substantial comments, but they tend to be rather few. Other websites attract very large numbers of comments, but they tend to be very short and insubstantial. I do think that our commenting software allows our website to the rare case of having very large numbers of generally substantial comments (though admittedly quite a number of them are deranged).

    And if implementing a new payment system finally gets rid of many of our annoying trolls, some of whom specialize in short and insubstantial comments, I think our comment threads may actually improve.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Crawfurdmuir
  123. Anonymous[173] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    The time estimates are based on Google Analytics, and I’m sure their system assumes you’ve left the website if you don’t take any action on a page you have open for a few minutes, so a page left open for 6 hours is probably recorded as something like 3 or 4 minutes.

    As far as I know, Analytics can’t see when a window/tab is closed so it will only calculate time spent on a page between a user entering and the final “click” on forward/back or any hyperlink from that page (including the commenting hyperlinks).

    Which means that a visitor who spends ten hours only reading the page and then exits by closing the window/tab will be counted as a “bounced” visitor (those who exit almost instantly).

    I’m not an expert so don’t quote me on this.

  124. Ron – great idea on charging above some threshold or perhaps a monthly fee. I agree, any business venture needs to be “sustainable” (not a charity) to maximize quality and group input. I’d simplify the logic as: If something has a value, people should be paying for it. Nothing is really “free” … except garbage.

    Advertising is inherently fraudulent for too many reasons to elaborate here (one-sided propaganda, bribery, bait-and-switch, etc.). Leave that for the Fake News industry.

    I still think the Comments section could use economizing for revenue and quality purposes. Still too many rambling dissertations that say nothing, passive-explosive tantrums full of personal attacks and no substance… not to mention potential “trolls.” This is effective management of a valuable property (your webzine) not “censorship” of views.

    This idea is not much different than the PAID Classified sections of newspapers in the past. Newspaper Classified sections tended to get to the point, be well organized, and created significant revenues for publishers. Thus, there’s a proven market for comments.

    Another idea that I didn’t see mentioned was public events. Might be nice to actually meet some of the writers/commenters once in a while. Dialog beats endless monologue lectures, as Socrates figured out long ago (and we’ve recently forgotten). Of course, you’d need to hire security.

    BTW, I don’t buy the “poor retirees” spiel. If anyone is rich enough to QUIT working and lounge around all day—and has the mentally capacity to read your website—they can get a part-time job to cover the meager access fees.

    Keep up the good work! Great business model on presenting interesting/alternative perspectives.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  125. anonymous[397] • Disclaimer says:

    Appreciate your efforts here Ron, but what exactly are you tring to accomplish?

    I will not participate in any payment mechanism that will reduce anonymity. And I am far more likely to reduce my time than go through whatever tutanota/bitcoin-like trouble I will need to go to attempt to preserve anonymity. I already mostly use VPN, curious how you believe you are tracking VPN users. I suppose I can start checking with Saker/Giraldi/etc directly instead of at unz.com.

    What are you trying to accomplish? Do you really need to be seduced by temptation of monetization?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  126. Lot says:
    @Brown boi

    Tor: great in theory.

    In practice: security flaws and slower than dial-up on a 14.4 modem in 1995.

    There are already sites like pirate bay that are supported by java cryptomining on users’ pcs.

    My advice to Ron on this: it will work, but the effort involved to get it working will probably not result in enough cash to compensate you for your time.

    But if it seems like an intellectually interesting programming project, it has actually been working on pirate bay for I think at least 6 months, maybe longer. So go for it if you are interested and see how much you actually make.

    While I don’t relish the idea of my PC running a little hotter to crypto mine a little bit here and there, it certainly beats obnoxious ads.

  127. There are likely to be future issues with any type of “non-anonymous” funding, e.g., writing a check, using Patreon or similar, etc., etc.

    First, even the most secure systems really aren’t. Simple inadvertent errors or hacking by various entities are very likely to result in exposure, leading to potential job/income loss, etc. for having “supported” a site many might consider to be too extremist, non-PC, etc. And, second, as gov’t becomes more intrusive and authoritarian, actual evidence of “support” for such a web site are likely to result in placement of “supporters” on various gov’t lists, possibly to eventually include mandatory enrollment in the not-too-inconceivable “re-education” or detention centers.

    No matter how unlikely some might consider those outcomes to be, prudence suggests that “non-anonymous” funding for all but the most non-controversial/innocuous organizations or websites is to be avoided if at all possible.

    Unfortunately, the only completely anonymous funding source appears to be via ads, with all of their negative impacts, as pointed out in previous posts. However, some sites seem to be able to control ad selection and placement much better than others, e.g., no flashing banner ads, no auto-start videos, minimally intrusive placement at ends of articles rather than within, etc., etc. I suggest that the negative impacts to the UR website could be minimized and the anonymity of the readership maintained while still providing additional income if ads were controlled in this manner.

  128. Lot says:
    @Ron Unz

    “ How many of the legitimate users of this website really visit 500 or 1000 of our pages per month?”

    When google crawls a site it is up front and reports itself in the user agent field. Lots of other companies don’t.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  129. @Jim Sweeney

    Jim Sweeney said: Maybe you should charge for an ad free version but let the version with ads be free. Let the customer choose is a better marketing approach it seems to me.

    Excellent idea.

  130. Kali says:
    @Durruti

    “I apparently owe you a debt of gratitude for your refusing to publish my articles.”

    If your comment is anything to judge by certainly the rest of us here owe Ron a debt of gratitude for keeping you out.

    Bitter much?

    By the way, that websites collate user data to use in various ways isn’t exactly “news” to most users with half a brain. But I sincerely doubt that Ron is on the MOSSAD pay-roll.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  131. Yes! Introducing some privileges and restrictions on basis of contributions could be a good thing.
    I only guess, but contributions should be quarter or half of year (prepaid.)

  132. GammaRay says:

    May I suggest you implement BAT functionality? Its not very widespread yet so its not feasible to make it your only source of donations but it would be useful to have as one stream of donations out of many.

    The most appealing thing about BAT is how easy it is to donate with it:

    https://basicattentiontoken.org/

    before anyone accuses me of shilling some random crypto keep in mind that the guy who invented BAT is the same guy who invented javascript (brendan eich), so its not as if its some obscure project

  133. @Brás Cubas

    That would be an interesting experiment.

    Just how many advertisers would advertise on this site and what sort of advertisers are they?

  134. Durruti says:
    @Kali

    If your comment is anything to judge by certainly the rest of us here owe Ron a debt of gratitude for keeping you out.

    So you support censorship!

    Does the term “Ass Licker” appear in your biography?

    • Replies: @Kali
  135. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Ron,

    Some of your readers have their own businesses. What about generating revenue through advertising or affiliate marketing for them? It would be a way to support your site and some of your readers without putting more money in Google’s pocket.

  136. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Another idea to look into might be Brave’s attention token tips, where readers can tip writers, commenters, or the site itself: https://brave.com/brave-rewards/

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  137. Anonymous[269] • Disclaimer says:

    Would it be possible to combine a free version with ads and a paid version without ads?

    And how about donations? Does unz.com (as opposed to individual bloggers on the site) accept donations? Perhaps the site could have a Donate button in a prominent spot.

    Fwiw I’m a sporadic visitor of the site and wouldn’t mind ads at all.

  138. I did not know you were monitoring how many hours I view your web site. That hurts my feelings. Also, sometimes I leave my computer on for a 2-3 days and Unz Review may just happen to be one of the tabs. I do enjoy this site and most of its contributors, but it does not mean I have been reading it straight for 72 hours.

    If merchandising, do it with alternative merchandise mostly unrelated to UR per se. e.g. “Crush Big Pharma” CBD topicals and other nutrients, or “Mossad Done It; from JFK to 9-11” line shirts and hats. And none of the $ x.99 nonsense. That is just an insult. Round it to the quarter, half or full dollar.

    I would also like to see grouped publications, digests, theme readers… i.e. bomber collections to download as a package. Sort of like the Norton Reader Series of books, but on line and more extensive. Could kick it off the American Pravda series with a series of contemporary author commentary, and ~50 open source classic (but largely forgotten) books and essays, all for $10-$20.

    That would be a bargain for high schools and college history classes.

  139. It is sad, but most do not understand the profit scores engendered by the internet. Google comes first, Unz is incentivated by them, already, he i-s de facto sponsored. The revenue engendered is scraps, google thus not impeding him from scavenging lower down the foodline makes Ron glaring at upping his take by taxing his commenters. Ultimately Unz is looking to upper the zine´s sales value. That, the sell-out, is the goal Ron Unz has in mind. He rightly estimates that the unz.com pages are nearing the top of their sales value. At best the curve of affiliation will flatten. The readership is geriatric. High average ages are the major group in readership.

    On another tac, the few quality comments make these pages. The methodology of a Sailer and Akarlin are set up to engender that, it lowers their workload to ping and launch some bait into the ether, based on the sound-back of previous comments on anything. Now the commenter on average, will he/she pay for the privilege of being the one mined at no cost, for the benefit of the site owners and writers, already sponsored to toggle the soundboard? Will, these commenters (and Ron has them in mind, not the readers) be stupored enough to swallow not being internships but pay for their feats? We do think so, this will also end the right side of the quality bell-curve. That is the going model.

  140. @Alfred

    That’s not creepy at all.

  141. Truth3 says:
    @Ron Unz

    The fly in the ointment is the Trolls will sock-puppet infinitely.

    You either have a way of solving it… and if you did, you could implement that solution right now.

    Or you don’t, and any system of pay they will just sock-puppet away, while those with integrity will carry the load.

    If you care not for the Viking Raid on Tel A Viva Las Vegas (already suggested), there is a better way.

    Track the IP Address of Trolls, and block them.

    Automatically block all IP addresses coming from Israel, too.

    If somebody tries to use a VPN Tunnel, block them too.

  142. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    I don’t have a problem with UNZ having some ads on its pages. Some–many?–people have ad blocking software, so ads on UNZ would be a very minor inconvenience.
    After all, readers don’t have to read the ads nor click on them.

    As for charging those who spend an inordinate amount of time on UNZ, that too is acceptable, but I imagine those whose ox will be getting gored will protest the loudest.

    For speaking the truth, I’ve been banned from dozens of sites since 9/11 and to me, that is a badge of honor.
    If UNZ needs to generate some income to keep this marvelous site up and running, so be it. It would be money well spent.

  143. @Dave Pinsen

    Dangerous, that takes unz.com out of the equation in bargaining stakes.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  144. peterAUS says:
    @PetrOldSack

    Subscribing is being set up to be victimized.

    Don’t say.

    But, that’s, really, not the primary reason behind this initiative.
    As

    …“who are your sponsers”…

    Let’s just say that from “monitoring” the thing is shifting to “practical politics”. Makes sense. Well, for those people anyway.Good timing, BTW. As expected.

    Just funny. I’d say even a little sad, reading some comments, but, well, it is what it is.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  145. peterAUS says:

    To keep this tight:

    @Commentator Mike

    They’re going to start charging us for spying on us and collating data from us.
    Online payments – increased doxing risk

    Don’t say.

    @Alfred

    I suspect it is a computer program that is downloading your site for storage and searching. Someone wants to monitor the comments of any user on your website.

    You think?

    @Chris in Cackalacky

    …much of the energy of this site is generated by your intelligent readers.

    Or, for some, by several regular commentators and an occasional anon.

    I would strongly encourage suggested donations rather than fees. There are some among us who have the means to underwrite the entire operation and may feel an obligation to step up…

    True, but that’s really not the idea.

    [MORE]

    @Jim Christian

    I notice for now, anyway, the site isn’t HTTPS. Not complaining…

    Hehe…good. Although, HTTPS wouldn’t make much of a difference. Let’s skip the chat about it.

    Maybe the Bigs read what we write looking to see who knows what and where they are? ….

    Ah, well….

    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    ….The main concern would commenters having their PERSEC compromised by linking a real name on a payment to a pseudonymous handle with a comment history. It’s not about fearing the ADL and SPLC, it’s about hostile anons (antifa, whatever) taking a stolen ‘encrypted’ list and doxxing the Unz commenter in real life, targeted to his or her personal and professional acquaintances. As you can imagine, that could be real trouble.

    Precisely

    @Durutti

    …This attempt is overdue. What kept you so long?…

    I feel you could guess it.

    ….you must pay, to be recorded and have your addresses placed on a list!…

    Ah, well, you know….

    @anonymus 397

    Appreciate your efforts here Ron, but what exactly are you tring to accomplish?

    Ahm….

    I will not participate in any payment mechanism that will reduce anonymity.

    Ah, well….

    I will need to go to attempt to preserve anonymity. I already mostly use VPN…

    Well, actually, the only way to REALLY preserve your anonymity is NOT to go on the Internet. Now, you ARE correct there: who can “dox” you? At the moment any member of Five Eyes, technically can, but they, really, socially/politically, can’t.
    With this scheme the list of potential “doxers” shall increase. As the commentator “Jenner Ickham Errican” wrote above.

    @Anonymous Reader

    There are likely to be future issues with any type of “non-anonymous” funding, e.g., writing a check, using Patreon or similar, etc., etc.
    First, even the most secure systems really aren’t. Simple inadvertent errors or hacking by various entities are very likely to result in exposure, leading to potential job/income loss, etc. for having “supported” a site many might consider to be too extremist, non-PC, etc. And, second, as gov’t becomes more intrusive and authoritarian, actual evidence of “support” for such a web site are likely to result in placement of “supporters” on various gov’t lists, possibly to eventually include mandatory enrollment in the not-too-inconceivable “re-education” or detention centers.
    No matter how unlikely some might consider those outcomes to be, prudence suggests that “non-anonymous” funding for all but the most non-controversial/innocuous organizations or websites is to be avoided if at all possible.

    Yep.

  146. Anonymous[758] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    CORRECTION: This “Platinum Membership” would feel much *BETTER than the sense that one is watching the fare meter tick away in a taxi.

  147. @Ron Unz

    Steve Sailer – author of – – – V-Dare! – – – – – Fascist. Steven Pinker – ex libral – now – – – – – fascist!

    The Nation about – – – – Quillette.

    Perfect answer of Claire Lehmann/ Quillette – she does not agree upon the premises of The Nation and therefore does not want to elaborate – – – – on topics such as: why she supports – – – – – fascists.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/quillette-fascist-creep/

    (This diatribe in The Nation sounds rather whiny and self-absorbed – The Ongoing Coddling of the American Mind).

  148. Obviously, anyone who checks in to the home page and leaves that tab open while continuing to read articles elsewhere online would be counted as using an average of one hour per day in a month. That’s just proof that your site is being accessed, not that it’s being used for the entire time that an IP address is engaged in using the site.

  149. Bellamy says:

    I consider a reader-supported model greatly superior to ads and would chip in the modest amount I can at the moment. This is one of the most interesting websites out there and deserves to be supported in a time of absurd and disturbing censorship.

  150. Vendetta says:

    Why not sell a membership package instead that comes with some perks? Supporter icon in the comments, maybe a print magazine once a quarter with a few of the highest quality articles?

    Unrelated, but I’d also like to offer my suggestions of Elijah Magnier and M.K. Bhadrakumar as additions to your writing lineup. Great independent reporting on the Middle East and global affairs, respectively. Both under-viewed on their own websites and neither seems particularly concerned with being surrounded by political correctness. I think Elijah Mafnier even has a profile on Gab.

  151. Vendetta says:
    @Anonymous

    I’d buy an Unz shirt for sure. Just keep it branded apparel and mugs though, don’t go branching out into shilling nootropics and workout pills. Those are the death of credibility for any alternative news source.

  152. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @PetrOldSack

    Ron could probably build his own version: commenters buy $x amount of tokens per month or year, which they can award to writers or to each other. It would be like a subscription, in a way, but since commenters would have a chance of earning some money too, maybe it would sweeten the deal a bit.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  153. 1. “Monthly Fees for Heavy Users?”
    …so you are prejudiced against weight-positive amerikans ? ? ? nice…
    2. as i mentioned previously, and several others did so themownselves, supporting (monetarily or philosophically) your website in general is a different kettle of fish from donating money which would go to writers they find abhorrent (for whatever legitimate/illegitimate reasoning)…
    obviously, this demonstrates their belife in free speech is not very deep, but that is the case, isn’t it…
    3. further, it is hardly reassuring that your brief valdemort anecdote means there won’t be (unjust) moral policing of such associations should your profile increase such that the eye of sauron takes note… oh, right…
    (LOTR metaphors trump potter every time)
    4. i probably don’t want to know how the googlers can tell when i have a web page open that i am reading, versus opening a web page and walking away to make water, watch teevee, or making a sandwich… whatever…
    5. wh nt chrg b th vwll ? f yu r a gd rdr, t s srprsngl pssbl t rd ds-mvwlld wrds…
    hee hee hee
    ho ho ho
    ha ha ha
    ak ak ak

    • Troll: Jim Christian
  154. utu says:
    @Sean

    Sean the most creepy commenter on UR. More ideations about and innuendos of physical threats. Advocacy for Palestinian ethnic cleansing. Should have add your two other favorites: Egging people on to assassinate Mr. Silverstein and defending Epstein by shifting the blame on the young women.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Sean
  155. @Steve Penfield

    I don’t buy the “poor retirees” spiel. If anyone is rich enough to QUIT working and lounge around all day—and has the mentally capacity to read your website—they can get a part-time job to cover the meager access fees.

    There are two paths to reasonable retirement (that should work together)–making enough money and spending less money. We retirees only get “poor” if we spend too much money.

    Pleading poverty is part of the tool-kit for staying out of poverty. 😉

  156. Miro23 says:
    @Anonymous

    How about Merchandising?

    Unz Shirts

    Derby mugs

    Sailer caps

    IOW pretend to pay. Free speech is a valuable commodity that needs time, hard work and financial commitment. Of course you pay for it, monthly, and out your income.

    If you can’t make the income, then leave it to people who can.

  157. Ron Unz says:
    @Lot

    “ How many of the legitimate users of this website really visit 500 or 1000 of our pages per month?”

    When google crawls a site it is up front and reports itself in the user agent field. Lots of other companies don’t.

    Actually, the 500-1000 pageviews or (many) more per month refer to specific commenters on this website. “Lot” seems to think that quite unlikely…but “Lot” falls into that exact category!

    Presumably, “Lot” will next claim that my software is mistaken, and it’s impossible that he actually visits 500-1000 pages here each month.

    But just in the first six days of December, “Lot” has already left 49 comments. Indeed, “Lot” has long been one of our most extremely prolific commenters, averaging over 200 comments per month for years. Presumably he has to read quite a lot of articles and posts to produce such an outpouring of comments. Overall, he’s left nearly 10,000 comments, totaling just over 800,000(!) words.

    Leaving a comment generates an additional pageview, so leaving 200+ comments per month seems very consistent with 500-1000 total pageviews.

    For “Lot” to claim that it’s rather implausible that anyone is actually generating 500-1000+ monthly pageviews when he’s doing exactly that himself is hardly surprising. “Lot” generally claims to be a half-German Christian yet he mostly just rants and raves about Jews and Israel. Indeed, just a couple of months ago I left a long comment noting his dishonesty and total incompetence:

    https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/feeding-the-israel-lobby/?showcomments#comment-3377921

    I’m not sure whether I’d classify “Lot” as an outright troll, but if his usage of this website is so enormously heavy, including leaving over 200+ comments per month, I do think he should probably be charged a fee…

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Lot
    , @Lot
    , @Colin Wright
  158. willem1 says:

    I think this is a terrific website. My method of following websites is to subscribe to their RSS feeds, then pluck out the stuff I want to read. I track around 50 websites this way.

    Unz.com gets much more than an average slice of my time. I highly discourage charging by the hour; this has a number of drawbacks already discussed by others. One thing I might point out myself is that reading any of the sometimes long e-books that have been posted is hugely time-intensive, since they are posted as HTML and cannot be easily downloaded for off-line reading.

    Ads wouldn’t bother me at all as long as they weren’t set up to do anything obnoxious like auto-play video or pop-up stuff. However, I wouldn’t become too dependent on this as an income stream, as subject to censorship has this has become these days.

    Personally, I DON’T pay for any website subscriptions (other than one or two streaming providers that have replaced my cable TV). Any time I click on something that lands on a paywall, I just move on, and I have learned over time which publications/domains not to bother clicking on. Also, it just wouldn’t work well for a lot of us to have to log in just to view content. If you want to require a login to comment, fine with me–I don’t view the Comment sections as very valuable most of the time.

    I DO make voluntary contributions to content providers if I find I am a frequent user. I already make a few such donations periodically to a couple of Unz.com contributors directly. I think Unz.com itself is an important website to support, and it would have gotten something from me long ago were it not for a couple of issues about my donations (see below).

    I really look for only two things when it gets to be time to think about donating: 1) The ability for my donations to remain private. It’s no one’s business who I support but me and the content provider. 2) I try not to use payment processors known to have a record of de-platforming or de-monetizing on the basis of content. (Patreon, do you hear me?)

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  159. Truth3 says:
    @Ron Unz

    You saved me from having to point out “Lot” as a hasbarite liar.

    Your data is inarguable.

    Just ban the creep. Ban all the trolls. Franny, AaronB, A123, all of them.

    A No Hasbarite Zone is what UNZ.COM needs.

  160. @Chris in Cackalacky

    I am an extremely Heavy User of UNZ.com. But as a writer myself, I don’t think that it would be fair or appropriate for this site to charge me (and other hard-working, second tier writers/contributors) for their contributions–especially since some of the comments on UNZ are as good as the featured article.

    Writing takes time, especially thoughtful analysis. It should not be taxed. After all, we commentators receive no remuneration as it is. Now you want to charge us for our efforts? That will undermine UNZ.

    Outstanding commentary is a big part of this site’s success. Taxing it will reduce it.

    I often spend many hours composing just one extended comment to an article. This is work! And it adds to UNZ.com. Please don’t charge me for my efforts.

    With that in mind, I do think that you should 1) invite financial contributions more aggressively than you now do, 2) permit (some) ads, and 3) launch an UNZ Review collection of hats, T-shirts, mugs, etc. If that all fails to raise sufficient revenus, then maybe a monthly subscription service would be the way to go.

    Thank you, Ron. You’re doing extraordinary work.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  161. @Ron Unz

    What are my traffic stats? Genuinely curious.

    I feel like I spend too much time on this site and I would like to cut down.

    I still think a paywall is a terrible idea, though. Large shilling companies have deep pockets.

  162. @follyofwar

    Many, I think, would wind up leaving.

    I kid because I care,, heh..Curly Bill just kinda says it all..

  163. Wally says:
    @Machbet

    And how will Revisionists, who like most everyone else here use a pseudonym, deal having their real names traceable upon making payments?

    Official list of Revisionist scholars persecuted / imprisoned for questioning the “Holocaust”:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12642

    BTW, CODOH, http://www.codoh.com does not charge people to post at their forum or download from CODOH’s massive database of “Holocaust” debunking information.

  164. @Liza

    Can you really blame Takimag for removing the comment section? I can’t.

    Pay 12.00 USD a month and you get to the other side where there are comments. Writers reply back and participate and they are RUTHLESS about assholes, a good thing. Taki doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and his daughter is an acknowledged tyrant as regards that site, very protective. But the handover of the thing to her cost them and I know damned well the new format is killing it the rest of the way, it’s impossible to catch all of the writers that were routine to find before, I find stuff I missed a week ago, thinking the writer was gone. And where is Dalrymple? Who knows, his scribblings are lost in the sauce of the new look. His picture isn’t there and I discovered that’s how to find everyone, but it’s a steamy pile of a mess.

    The woman’s touch doesn’t work in comedy and it sure doesn’t work in decorative web design. As most things female in tech, it doesn’t work. Go ahead, now tell me how bad I am for noticing. My girlfriend blasted me last week in one of these discussions we had. She was pissed because she really couldn’t note the great female website or designer or CEO. They’ve all failed or been frauds or were coat tail riders to men. She was merely pissed for noticing. I like it when they’re angry..

    • Replies: @Liza
  165. I didn’t even know you had a Patreon. Just went to the main page and looked for a link, a “support the UR” or whatever, and I don’t see it.

    Myself, I’m ready to be a subscriber, at any reasonable rate. Monetizing through Google ads sounds like a bad idea to me.

  166. @ Ron Unz

    I sometimes leave articles open for days, intending to read them when I can. I had believed that if nothing was changed the static connection would be broken, and not eating up site time.

    I was wrong, and I do apologize. I will desist from such a practice from this point forward.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  167. Hacienda says:

    I have a fun relationship with this site. 1/5 of the time I want to punch a poster. 1/5 of the time a post brightens the moment. Mostly, I think the site probably pulled Trump to the 2016 election. No unz.com, no Trump? This site packed that kind of punch. Now it seems to have become a running gag reel. IOW, it may have already peaked with Trump’s election. What’s left for it to do?

    I’ll pay, but it will be mostly for that great stretch between 2014 to Trump’s election, when Sailer and the like were still hungry and desperate.

    • Replies: @Wally
  168. Lot says:
    @Ron Unz

    ““ Lot” seems to think that quite unlikely”

    Poor logic.

    “Some apparent heavy users are probably bots” ≠

    “Nobody but bots have 1000 pageviews in a month.”

    Indeed, leaving intelligent comments precludes such botdom.

  169. Bruno says:

    My iPhone says 10 minutes a day, that is 5 hours. The only sites where I go more are The New York Times (using different firewalls in order not to pay), The Economist (paying paper and internet subscription) and The New Yorker (using firewall). In total I spend 30 a month, mostly when I am travelling by bus or if I am eating alone or having a coffee break ….

    I am not sure I would pay a subscription because I have breitbart, Taki, Vdare and several Hbd blogs (Emil Kirkegaard list) for feee …. but I would give some money via PayPal on voluntarily way, like with Sailer.

  170. joe862 says:
    @stevecel

    This would be the problem for a ton of people I’d think. As soon as the site starts getting personal information from people that becomes a huge target. When the contributors list goes public it’s a big problem. Making people who spend a lot of time here pay to not see ads is a far better solution.

    • Replies: @Wally
  171. Wally says:
    @Hacienda

    It’s my bet that this site has increased it’s readership tremendously after Trump’s election and is still climbing.

    Ron’s & many others informative work here demolishing the absurd “holocaust” nonsense has had, and does have, quite an appeal.

    Such is the lure of taboos, such is the attraction to truth.

  172. Wally says:
    @joe862

    Yep, see comment #168.

  173. Ron Unz says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    I sometimes leave articles open for days, intending to read them when I can. I had believed that if nothing was changed the static connection would be broken, and not eating up site time.

    Well, the system certainly doesn’t seem to think you’re spending all that much time on the website, so your practices seem fine.

    Anyway, as I keep reiterating, any sort of “soft paywall” would probably be based on pageviews rather than time-estimates, so none of the reasonable people here have much to worry about.

    On the other hand, people who’ve published 800,000 words of (substantially trollish) comments over the years will probably may be forced to pay for that continued privilege or else depart.

    I think driving away a few of such cheapskate trolls would only cut our comments by 1-2% or so and probably improve things a bit.

    Also, totally off-topic comments might clutter up this thread and may get trashed.

  174. Liza says:
    @Jim Christian

    I don’t know about tomorrow or next week, but if you go to takimag.com rfn (early evening, December 6, 2019 anno domini), in the upper right hand corner is Dalrymple’s latest. So, you click on that, and after reading the article, on the right hand side lower down, there is a box with “MORE ARTICLES BY THIS AUTHOR”. Grab it while you can! I am afraid that Takimag is kind of muddle and jumbled, as you know.

    Also, I see that they are repeating articles by K. Shaidle. The commenters really used to pile on her.

    The woman’s touch doesn’t work in comedy and it sure doesn’t work in decorative web design. As most things female in tech, it doesn’t work. Go ahead, now tell me how bad I am for noticing.

    No, you are not bad for noticing.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  175. Lot says:
    @Ron Unz

    “ I’m not sure whether I’d classify “Lot” as an outright troll,”

    Of course I am! Not completely, but quite often. There’s nothing wrong with that either, lulz mining is vital to Internet discourse.

    The feeling used to be mutual. When you started on your “High Mexican IQ” “Low Hispanic Crime” and “Jews killed JFK and faked the Holocaust” descent into madness, I sincerely thought it was a deeply planned and brilliantly executed troll job.

    What bothered me is I couldn’t quite figure out why. Lulz can easily motivate a fair amount of work, but never at the scale of what you were doing.

    Now I do know, with about 99.5% certainty, that you are sincerely nuts. Mainly because trolls tend to avoid extremely lengthy follow-up arguments.

    “ yet he mostly just rants and raves about Jews and Israel. ”

    No, not “mostly.” And I’ll bet my comments are a lot less likely to mention Jews than your. Not that there’s anything wrong with having Jews on the mind a lot, just as long as it isn’t affecting your IRL.

    While not as exciting as the prospect of an intricate long term trolling operation, I remain fascinated, like a train wreck it is hard to look away!

  176. dear mr. Unz, thanks for your website.

    i think readers who enjoy reading their favorite writers/activists will not mind putting up with the ads, unsightly as they maybe. however, the thought of subsidizing crazy right or left ideas is too much to ask for from the average person.

    thanks again.

  177. @Anonymous

    There are a number of problems with all of this and that is the bit of being anonymous for the most part on this site. Of course Ron has an IP address for each commenter or viewer but besides that I see a lot or problems in your site and attempted hacking of it once you go into a database of monetary charges and or other things. Ron should realize that the Marxists and nutbags are going to try and get him and to find out who is posting here for social mob attacks and to destroy people’s reputation.

    Everything is hackable and nothing can be made truly secure. I’m not sure about Bitcoin’s truly being anonymous because I think the CIA is involved or other Intelligence Agencies. Perhaps a once a year fundraiser like other sites do might be the easiest and best way. I wish you good luck Ron because the bigger you get the more you will threaten the Mainstream Media Complex.

    • Replies: @idrankwhat
  178. iffen says:

    I might pay to see how this ends.

    • LOL: PetrOldSack
  179. Anon[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Not in competition with S. Miller 😄. And not, perhaps, your typical reader. I wouldn’t mind paying, and gladly, yet I was advised/ required to not comment with a handle. Even less could I become a paying member. Please do not charge users. The hasbaras will pay, and perhaps good people —even if only a few— will stay out.

    Truth is a good. It has a life of its own. By circulating it for free, you are contributing to a greater good we cannot even now fathom.

    Thank you for your time.

  180. Old Jew says:

    Dear Mr. Unz.

    How much would I have to pay, to limit Mr. Philip Giraldi ,to only two articles per month?

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • LOL: iffen, Liza
  181. Art says:

    Without question The Unz Review has the best most critical articles on the net. Anything to diminish that process must be avoided. The comments add to the process – they ferret out both truth and BS. Both are of value.

    What costs UNZ Review the most – publishing interesting articles or processing comments.

    What brings the most traffic – article reading or comment reading?

    Maybe putting advertisements on the comments section only could pay the bills. I believe the page side info, is little used by the readers of comments. Perhaps everyone would win – Ron’s publishing goals, article readers, commenters, and the bank account.

  182. Muse says:

    I give couple bucks a months to support the Unz Review via Patreon. I would rather not use Patreon, as I like my privacy, but Patreon was what was available. While I enjoy the diverse and sometimes heretical stuff published in Unz, what truly pleases me is that alternate viewpoints are made available to the public. No other website is doing this important work as well as this site. The fact that people are spending a great deal of time on the site is wonderful.

    Perhaps this is wrong, but I have assumed that Ron can afford to run the Review, and he does it as a public service. The opportunity cost of programming, troubleshooting and moderating the site probably exceeds Ron’s cash outlays by a large margin.

    I despise Google and their monopolistic business model. For this reason alone, I would prefer that the Review remain independent from the Google/big data revenue ecosystem. It is clear that any revenue provided via the tech giants can be taken away for any reason, or reduced via rent seeking. Better to remain independent. Perhaps a monthly gift might enable a user to comment more than once on an article and would reduce the trolling.

    The internet has destroyed the old business model that paid for content. Most flagship operations have a patron, be it a state or an individual and every patron has interests. Bezos has the Post. Mercer’s have Breitbart. The Chicago Sun Times is run by big labor. Putin has RT. Falun Gong runs the Epoch Times. There is certainly little objectivity in any of our current propaganda/media organizations. I try to glance at Breitbart, CNN, Huffpost and Real Clear Politics at least once a week to calibrate my sensitivity to media bias and propaganda. I read Sailer for information and the shits and giggles.

    Maybe the media has alway had power and patrons controlling content behind the scenes and the internet has destroyed their anonymity.

    I often wished that there was a provider like Netflix for written and podcast content that was a single fee subscription which apportioned the revenue from fees to each provider based on usage. Another option may be to open up the blog and commenting software using a fee, and the revenue from this business, or it’s capital could be directed to a charitable foundation to support the Review. I don’t really know the economics of a potential competitor like Blogspot, but I find the commenting and moderating features superior to blogspot, and I appreciate the anonymity.

  183. Anonymous[196] • Disclaimer says:

    It is too easy for someone donating via a site like Patreon to get doxxed. You need to solve the privacy issue before you require payment. Plus, you need to consider the likelihood that your payment processor will deplatform you for the views you publish.

  184. @Liza

    I don’t know about tomorrow or next week, but if you go to takimag.com rfn (early evening, December 6, 2019 anno domini), in the upper right hand corner is Dalrymple’s latest. So, you click on that, and after reading the article, on the right hand side lower down, there is a box with “MORE ARTICLES BY THIS AUTHOR”. Grab it while you can! I am afraid that Takimag is kind of muddle and jumbled, as you know.

    Didn’t have to do that in the old days of yester-year June 2019. That you had to do this many steps to educimate me in how to reach Dalrymple’s latest is evidence of the failure of the new format. Let Taki know. Tell him to set our people free and go back to the old format. It’s an important place, Taki’s and they defaced the site with the new format. Lots of folks here I can reach elsewhere. But not Goad or several others.

  185. Not sure if anyone mentioned this as i didn’t read all comments; but you could also have a free section for those who aren’t rolling in the doe. And then maybe have some kind of sliding scale for some of the articles:

    I really like this site. I don’t have a lot of time to read and have to manage my time carefully. I have downloaded a few of the very Long Articles by you, Mr. Unz, and a couple other guys. I am still working on the Holocaust article which I find very fascinating. I am not able to go along with the holocaust being a complete hoax; a crime obviously happened, but the numbers simply do not add up, so it’s obviously exaggerated.

    Anyways, I can definitely put out a little money, but it won’t be a lot, as I am a working class gal; totally hate my job but it pays the rent.

  186. We should open an unz rehab clinic for heavy unz users and make the first day of December unz awareness day.

  187. @Ron Unz

    Well I very rarely visit Takimag myself, but their traffic does seem to have dropped by 50-100% over the last year or two according to standard measures, and is now perhaps 20% of ours.

    Maybe their drop in traffic is a result of suppressing comments.

    It seems to me that charging people to comment may result in a similar drop in traffic for The Unz Review.

    I read the comments here as well as the articles, and have often found useful information in them, or at the very least, interesting and well-argued opinions. Putting aside the obvious trolls the comments still add value to the Review rather than detracting from it. Why charge people to contribute if it improves rather than degrades its content? Or is your opinion that it doesn’t?

    In looking at my comments here I find that I have made (before this one) 981, totaling 175,100 words. I have no idea how this stacks up with other commenters or how the proposed fee scheme would cost me. Can you provide any estimate?

  188. @Saggy

    Don’t understand this, I thought you hate the Hasbaras.
    Another point I don’t understand is the complaints about Hasbara and commenters not agreeing with the writer and posting arguments. Ron seems to pride himself on presenting both sides of the argument and boasts that controversy creates a unique and eclectic site.
    Yet Ron and others tremendous are hostile and call us “Trolls”. What exactly is a Troll?
    I notice on PG articles where he has banned many commentators he pages digress into an unattractive discourse.
    Am I correct about this paradox? You sort of love to hate us. Ron please explain how we Hasbara trolls fit into this scenario, and why do cast shade on us.

    Left-wingers may discover surprising or disturbing right-wing ideas, and right-wingers do the same with left-wing notions. Probably these encounters are usually fruitless and merely reinforce existing stereotypes, but perhaps sometimes they produce surprises and some minds are changed.

  189. ‘… The exact details and payment methodology will need to be determined, perhaps involving Patreon or other similar systems as an option…’

    Sigh. Okay. I still think it’s odd that I should give money to someone richer than myself, though.

  190. @Ron Unz

    ‘…“Lot” generally claims to be a half-German Christian yet he mostly just rants and raves about Jews and Israel. Indeed, just a couple of months ago I left a long comment noting his dishonesty and total incompetence…’

    I guess I should fight the good fight, but I’m actually ambivalent about Lot.

    Unlike our other Zionists, he’s actually alright if you catch him away from Israel — and he does comment on other issues.

    Don’t let it go to your head, Lot. I’ll still be there the next time you attempt to defend the foulness of the Zionist entity. For it is evil things we shall be fighting…

    • Replies: @Lot
  191. @Durruti

    So RU and TPTB behind this enterprise don’t want to let Durruti have his Column. You can tell what time it is.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  192. What if they use a VPN or change their dynamic IP to get around it? I say go for reasonable monthly fees on heavy users that are browsing the website and a steeper one for the trolls. You could provide users information on their current monthly allowance. I wonder how many people actually spend money to get past a paywall. I remember back in the day when I trolled a troll. Maybe you should just ban the trolls? They could save their heavy trolling for particular articles. Maybe there should be a comment limit per an article for free users based on how much disruption by trolls is acceptable per an article, and charge for anything extra. If it was just for the trolls I’d charge ridiculous prices if it were me to make sure the paywall effectively limited disruptive behavior.

  193. dfordoom says: • Website

    The idea of monthly fees is without doubt the worst idea you’ve ever come up with. You’ve got a great site and you’re proposing to wreck it. And you’re proposing to penalise the people who actually contribute by commenting. Unbelievable.

    The problem is not so much the money. It’s the aggravation. And of course the possible loss of anonymity, which could well lead to people losing their jobs. It’s absolutely utterly insane.

    Advertising would be a better option, with an option for paying for an ad-free version.

    • Agree: Dissident
  194. Miro23 says:
    @Muse

    The internet has destroyed the old business model that paid for content. Most flagship operations have a patron, be it a state or an individual and every patron has interests. Bezos has the Post. Mercer’s have Breitbart. The Chicago Sun Times is run by big labor. Putin has RT. Falun Gong runs the Epoch Times. There is certainly little objectivity in any of our current propaganda/media organizations.

    That’s true. The internet has finished off a lot of business models, but at the same time it opens the door to new things like Unz.com. It’s an internet product from the start with a completely different cost structure and giving an international and almost real time writer- commenter interaction. Completely different thing to paper publishing.

    Maybe Unz.com needs more patrons. It could produce some conflicts of interests, make problems for Ron and threaten the present censorship free model – so it’s a whole set of new questions.

  195. Jim Smith says:
    @Jim Sweeney

    Jim Sweeney said: “I would prefer not to pay for writers with whom I disagree or whose work I don’t enjoy. ”

    How about allowing heavy site-users to specify whether their payments go to support “left-wing” or “right-wing” or “both sides” of the stable of writers?

  196. @GeorgeD

    Normal proceedings. When you are moved a hundred comments down the line, you know you might have said something useful.

  197. @peterAUS

    Indeed, the building an audience (market share), phase is done. The curve is flattening. Sponsors have been held of with the promise that a larger fringe audience can be reached and influenced. The promise of influencing needs now to come through, or sponsors will start cutting funds. The problem seems to be the small fraction of the commentariat, and the reaction to that(attracting informed readers).

    In many ways. It is essential to unz.com, to make these non sponsored individuals go away. The problem, the top tier audience will flee. On the other hand, leaving a gateway to informed opinionated comments done by individuals that are not sponsored brakes the nexus of interest with the top down sponsors. A rock and a hard place, and genius Ron Unz has no ready solution to that, so he is left wheels spinning. To his credit, there is no solution to the clash between base psychology and sophistication in rational. At higher levels, universities, and the political apparatus, the corporate world, Wallstreet, all have the same innate problem of contradiction.

    The safe choice of Unz will be to curate the meaningful commenters in various meta-data ways, now the handwork of human reading of the threads is fastidious, and dumb down the content, to please sponsors. Paying his writers (giving control of the agenda), having the readers pay, our guess is going to have as the main effect, the upper tier audience, academics, schooled middle class administrators, university degree audiences, the media colleagues, and the writers of dead columns looking for inspiration out. That will of course null the unz.com prestige.

    Unz has no choice, drop the ego, please the sponsors, suck and beg the audience, get a better handle on the writers, now having to be content with less pay, now being less opposed, …and censure the sharp and lucid fringe commenters. The wolf awaiting on the side lines: the unz.com phenomenon repeated by some other conventional media outlets.

    There is no solution to the paradigm, if content is not dim, it is not mass consumable, and it is dangerous in building fringe audiences that make the sandyman trade even more tedious as the internet phenomenon has upped the level of aversity. Sponsors are detracted, they cater to numbers. Information is just another commodity to be peddled. Unz knows that much.

    My comments, were shoved down the lines, one or two disappeared, the regular. A lab test of how the artisanal unz.com plant operates. Our opinion into the intricacies of unz.com is largely shaped since the beginning. Do not expect to read this comment in the thread, or too late, or at the bottom of the line, where it is not impacting.

    Ron plugged into convention from the start, hence his being till now undisturbed by censuring, contrary to the hocus pocus reasoning he tries to give to his immunity of prosecution. He is one of them, always was, always will. A sophisticated thrifter. And till now successful to his credit again.

    • Replies: @Liza
  198. Renoman says:

    Whatever it takes Ron, it’s a great site!

  199. @Dave Pinsen

    Agree. Either you have an opinion, or a paid for opinion. Writers, commenters, there is no difference.

    Paying for exposing your opinion, if one is not debilitated, and knowing the base psychology of the audience is a moron´s game. On the other hand, opinionating(comments), averse to convention, with quality of argument, will attract the better fringe audience. That is the flag of unz.com, sadly, time expires and it drives the sponsoring astray, it solidifies a group of fringe people, gives outliers a voice, makes the impact of dead authors and their dead columns loose on impact, in general undesirable from the thrifter point of view.


    unz.com had this deadline built in, it was simply allowed to build market share, but the graphs show that it is time to capitalize. Or not, the wrath of the sponsors, and the mega-data machine that powers the unz.com pages, will in extremis pull the plug. Ron has no choices, he had himself willingly set up to one day capitalize, and create a product that could be sold.

    As to advertising or not, information is advertising in the conventional concept, hence info-mercials. This is achieved by making spewing “information” sponsored. So yes, unz.com will now become incrementally more advertised upon.

    Do not think this comment will reach the thread, if not way down, way late, as usual.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  200. @Muse

    “Another option may be to open up the blog and commenting software using a fee,”

    Bingo. The commenting siteware at UR is the best I’ve ever seen and I’ve been participating online since ’95, starting with the advent of the old BBS model. Licensing it for other sites might bring in revenue, if revenue is the issue.

  201. Some of these readers may be individuals living in reduced circumstances, who possess much more available time rather than money.

    That’s me.

    The Unz Review is an oasis in a political desert. The English speaking world owes you a debt of gratitude. Gratitude of course does not pay the bills. Do what you must.

    But I beg you. Do not do business with Google.

  202. conatus says:

    Great site.Yeah. I support via Patreon.
    Keep those American Pravda articles online.
    They rocked my world.
    I’ll pay.

  203. Walter says:

    Sad, but reasonable. Corbett Report may be a fair model…his model persuaded my wife to send money.

    One must take into account that old people, retired on niggardly incomes, have at long last plenty of time to read, but nearly zero dollars.

    Corbett’s model is that if you do not subscribe, the site asks you to subscribe at any rate you yourself feel good about, anything from one buckie per month ($01.00 / month). Then you can click to and read what you chose, whether or not you make any payment of subscribe.

    Corbett’s model obviously works for his project, which is superb, as is UNZ.

    Many thanks to UNZ for his projects.

  204. Yep, guilty on several counts. The problem with being a reasonably well-paid professional is that affiliation with websites that offer up controversial viewpoints, even in a reasonably balanced manner, is a quick ticket to not being a reasonably well-paid professional if your info is leaked. In addition, I feel (as I approch my retirement years) for those of limited means, for whom UR is a reource of value perhaps beyond their means to support … well on its way to being a national treasure, some might posit.

    Certainly you should not be shy about asking for money. I’d say keep the site free and open as it currently is to contributed content and comments, and find an anonymous tip jar and/or patron page (for the more bold of us) to solicit value for value.

  205. A few points.

    People spending their valuable time here doesn’t necessarily mean that they’d be willing to spend their money as well. It’s well known that sometimes even a very small monetary fee is enough to discourage certain activities, like using plastic bags.

    Then there’s the issue that some people don’t merely spend their time to read. They are also content creators. I certainly spend most of my time reading and writing comments. Now high value comments are a big part of the appeal of any site. By discouraging comments, your site would lose some part of its appeal. Perhaps even a large part of it.

    I didn’t think the ads were so bad (but I also didn’t like them), but maybe a better approach would be charging for extra rights. Unlimited agree buttons for $3 a month? Supporter badge for $10 a month? Master supporter for $30 a month?

    Or for starters just a simple donation facility. I think I’ve already asked if I could donate to the website, and the answer back then was that I had to donate to the authors.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @iffen
  206. @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    And you want us to believe that you when you work you refuse to accept a wage?

  207. @ivegotrythm

    Maybe the SPLC and the ADL would like to be sponsors too?

  208. LINGENMI says:

    Foolishness. The second you stray from what made this great is the second you begin your slide into irrelevance. Destroy the sith. Don’t join them.

  209. Perhaps the handles of readers who sign up for a subscription have those handles designated as supporters in some way, similar to how the backgrounds of contributor comments are currently a different color than other comments.

    Contributors could be encouraged to make engaging with these supporters’ comments a priority. This could function in a way that is similar to how superchats function on Youtube.

  210. Personally, I think a soft paywall could be an excellent system to implement.

    I already contribute monthly via Patreon and would be happy to contribute instead via a direct paywall system, especially if the new system bypasses the political censorship increasingly being practiced by payment intermediaries such as Patreon.

    To my mind, Unz Review is among the most valuable English-language resources of information and opinion that exist. It abundantly merits the material support of its readership.

    As regards viewers and commenters who wish to remain anonymous, the recital of fact should be made that only exceptionally tech-savvy and operationally fastidious users of the Web are, in actual practice, able to preserve their anonymity. Web users possessing this level of skill and discipline can readily find means of submitting comments and payment anonymously. All others are best disabused of the notion that they remain untraceable.

    • Replies: @Treadwater
  211. @willem1

    “Unz.com gets much more than an average slice of my time. I highly discourage charging by the hour; this has a number of drawbacks already discussed by others. One thing I might point out myself is that reading any of the sometimes long e-books that have been posted is hugely time-intensive, since they are posted as HTML and cannot be easily downloaded for off-line reading.”

    Yes. I’ve read a couple of books in their entirety here. Also, I often read all of the comments to any particular article, some of which are informative and well reasoned while others are repetitive. If others have said what I wish to say, I say nothing.

    Some of you are very witty and insightful. What I value here is links people provide to subjects about which I’m only dimly aware. This is like being in a giant college seminar-like class, with each person contributing their two cents in the area in which they specialize.

    I used to pay $65 a year for my subscription to the New York Review of Books; I don’t see why a one-time donation or fee would be too onerous for us. But, make it a once a year thing so it’s one and done. That way it’s “out of sight, out of mind”.

    If you were really clever, you’d devise a system whereby votes-up for comments would make it so certain commenters (and I’m not thinking of me here) would pay less or not be required to pay because their contribution would be recognized as being part of the draw of the site. In other words, there would be an incentive for commenters to come up with their best stuff. Let’s face it, many of us here are frustrated writers.

  212. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor

    By discouraging comments, your site would lose some part of its appeal. Perhaps even a large part of it.

    It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t want to discourage comments. He wants to discourage a certain type of comment. For example, I think that he heartily welcomes most of your comments while wishing to discourage about 75% of mine.

    The other part of this somewhat quixotic quest of his is to rub the noses of (((those))) in the print media that showed him to the door. He has built a successful webzine, but that is only half of the pie. He has to figure out some way to make it profitable, or at least not a money drain. Only then will he be able to slap the whole pie into their faces.

    All this aside, it is admirable that he has archived and catalogued tremendous amounts of material. With regard to the comment sections, where else can you actually discuss the JQ in an informative and factual manner?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  213. KarlS says:

    I’m retired and on a limited income but would be more than willing to pay a fee. The amount proposed seems reasonable. Or for me, not an extremely heavy user, an amount equivalent to an annual magazine subscription.

  214. @niteranger

    @niteranger

    You wrote: “I’m not sure about Bitcoin’s truly being anonymous”

    Bitcoin is not and never has been anonymous. There are “chain analysis” companies that sell their analysis of your transactions. It’s very hard to avoid being de-anonymized, unless you are extremely skilled and extremely paranoid.

    A much higher degree of privacy is obtainable with Monero. It is private by default so every Monero transaction is cloaked unless you “opt out” and so it’s much much harder to figure out who is paying whom and how much. Of course, if you are being individually targeted by the NSA, Unit 8200, or GCHQ, forget about anonymity. There’s always a way to breach privacy, given sufficient resources and motivation.

    [MORE]

    The main drawback of Monero is that it is “too private” and therefore many cryptocurrency exchanges won’t list it for trades. So it is harder to obtain than is Bitcoin. It is also harder to use, for now.

    Zcash is another cryptocurrency with strong privacy. But very few transactions utilize this privacy, so those who “opt in” stand out as “having something to hide.”

    The same goes for Bitcoin users who use “mixers” to obscure their transactions. They will be suspected of nefarious activity, since the vast majority of Bitcoin transactions are transparent.

    P.S. Ron, you should both allow Monero donations and charge a mandatory subscription fee in Monero for anyone leaving more than X number of comments per article. The problem with all cryptocurrencies is that it is difficult to implement recurring charges, as these are “push” payment systems, unlike credit cards, from which merchants can “pull” payments. One model would be to charge a “retainer” every year or quarterly and then use this to charge for comments or excessive downloads/pageviews. This offers a degree of both spam and DDOS protection.

    P.P.S. A final idea: web browser mining of Monero. It’s possible to insert a snippet of javascript in your served web pages so that the client’s CPU mines Monero while the tab is open and sends proceeds to your Monero wallet. This mining can be throttled so it does not overburden the client’s computer. It’s unclear how much revenue you’d gain from this new approach, but it is arguably less annoying than advertisements and more egalitarian than donations, since everyone “pays” with their CPU work according to their degree of usage. This is immature technology, so do your own research.

  215. @Liza

    Great comment. Yes, unz articles and comments alike have contributed to some evolution in my thinking on economic issues.

  216. Willem says:

    The reason why I visit Unz is because it’s free and because there are some great commenters whose views are interesting.

    Perhaps one should make it possible to pay commenters. Although the commenters that I follow probably would find that an offense.

    You give away comments for free, because you love to give away your comments. That’s all.

    If I should ever need to pay for the writers here, I for sure would be one of the first to drop out.

    And the people who spend hundreds to thousands of hours here: you sure that these people are only one person? Or is this the traditional Phillip Cross who spends hundreds of hrs writing pages for Wikipedia. Perhaps such ‘persons’ should not pay for the site, but permanently banned as they are probably payed trolls.

  217. Liza says:
    @PetrOldSack

    Your comments would seem to describe that there are so many facets to running a show such as this one, that there is never any once-and-for-all “solution” that will satisfy everyone.

    The major party here is walking on a tightrope, I would think, and has to be on top of things at all times and be ready to move this way or that – unless this is just some kind of little hobby and he doesn’t care about his “baby” all that much. Mr. Unz as far as I can see can’t just come up with some new angle and think, oh, I’ve got it now. But in any case we the commenters (such as some of us may be) matter, too, and unlike Mz Taki, he knows he can’t just slap a monthly fee on everyone across the board. JMO, as they say.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  218. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    “The main concern would commenters having their PERSEC compromised by linking a real name on a payment to a pseudonymous handle with a comment history. ”

    @jenner…

    As a computer programmer who started programming in the late seventies, I was using the internet before there was an internet. One of the first things I learned when typing my thoughts into a computer, is to behave as if my mother were looking over my shoulder, because once typed into a computer, you have no idea where it will end up.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  219. Durruti says:
    @Commentator Mike

    So RU and TPTB behind this enterprise don’t want to let Durruti have his Column. You can tell what time it is.

    You, also support censorship?

    The key point is that any money -$- financial imput on Ron Unz’ website is the END of this website, (even as a pretend ‘Alternate-Media’ site). With the presence of Money Lenders tables, this website joins MSNBC, FOX, CNN, NYT, Wash Post, Haaretz, TV, etc., an nauseum.

    The mere suggestions – TWIN SUGGESTIONS – floated by Unz are ruinous to all Open meeting of the minds.

    1. Make the Commenters, (the Proles) pay.

    2. Ban the Trolls (shut down an open Forum – convert it into its opposite – Mainstream Media).
    Say its not so – Joe!

    3. The mere suggestion of $billing the Commenters, separates us from the Elite Rulers, the Writers, and the OWNER.

    Hint for the preservation of Unz Review – as it is now – (where, as far as I know, I am the only writer – willing to contribute articles, who is banned from this forum), as an imperfect, but helpful intellectual center of learning,

    The Saker periodically asks for -and receives $Financial Help from Friends. Surely Unz, and his Associates can raise enough $$ this way.

    A little story.

    While I & other youth were attending weekly lectures by Malcolm X, in Harlem, a collection plate was passed among the multi-ethnic crowd of 500+. Whites/Anglos were not permitted to place any Money in the plates. As Malcolm X explained, “Where Whitey pays, Whitey controls.” He, with a smile, and always friendly to all, suggested we might send in some money, if we wished, by way of Mail, with no return address placed by ourselves.

    His point was well taken. If Alternate Media (and Political Forces), wish to remain Alternate, it/they must separate itself/themselves, not only from the brainwashing lies of the Zionist Oligarch Owned Media, but also from their $30 Pieces of Silver. Once you get some$$, you always need more! Beware the power of Zionist Gold. It is their system that has enslaved us.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Commentator Mike
  220. Lot says:
    @Colin Wright

    Hey I’ll take a heavily qualified complement.

    I checked Ron’s allegation I post “mostly” about Jewish/Israel topics against my ~45 December comments. There was 1 that mentioned AJ IQ as well as other groups and one that mentioned Israel. So 6%. I’m sure it is higher some other months, but I doubt ever “mostly.”

    These issues do tend to either trigger me, sincerely or trollingly. I also think there is a lack of mainstream US Christian Zionist perspective. A lot of Christian Zionism comes from the gut and isn’t articulated. That gut feeling is that Israelis are “our guys” in the region.

    Here’s where I differ from Jewish Zionists:

    I hope that secular Jews around the world, but especially outside of Israel, become Christians, ideally conservative Protestants.

    I’d also like to see an Israel-like Christian nation(s) carved out of parts Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank.

    I like and respect Iranians and Assad much more than Sunni Arabs. Peace with them and a focus on colonization of the West Bank makes sense to me.

    I don’t feel much connection with all the non-European “exotic” Jews in Israel, and don’t like the Hebrew language.

    Islam’s borders are the borders of civilization and barbarism. Zionism is important for secular reasons because I don’t want to see one further inch surrendered to Islam. Reading about the destruction of ancient Christian communities in the Middle East and Anatolia over the past 100 years is depressing.

    Another secular reason for Zionism is that Israel serves as a model of liberal, civilized nationalism and eugenic natalism. They show the world that a nation can have secure borders, democracy, and high white fertility. Israel’s conservative Jews also serve to provide cover against the “das raciss” attacks by secular leftists. That cover doesn’t convince the far leftists, but seems to serve a valuable purpose in letting normal conservatives move further toward nationalism with a clear conscience.

    Final meta point and complement to both you Ron and others willing to debate these issues: engaging with people you disagree with free of censorship sharpens your wits. Traditionally leftists are more creative and better at propaganda than the right. But in 2016, we learned young leftists can’t meme. Stuck in a PC bubble, their one and only tool is SJW censorship and mobbing of dissidents. That works to clear conservatives out of parts of academia, but lost them the Executive and Judicial branches of government.

    • Agree: Fran Taubman
    • Disagree: Colin Wright
    • LOL: Alfred
  221. @Willem

    “Perhaps one should make it possible to pay commenters.”

    Exactly. Ron could gain renown and turn the internet on its head by arranging this site so that those commenters deemed to have made the most substantive and popular comments would be paid proportionally. This would create the most professional comment section on the net.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  222. JasonT says:
    @Ron Unz

    I come here and read quite a lot of tine, and only post occasionally. If I had to pay to read, I would stop coming. If I had to pay to post, then I would still come to read and perhaps post even less.

  223. reezy says:

    Count me in (as soon as I become re-employed) LOL

    @Ron Unz, if you happen to see this, would you mind telling me what my usage levels are? Based off my own experiences, I tend to do sporadic periods of heavy reading followed by a hiatus. Though I’ve been moving around the world quite a bit over the last half a year, so not sure how that would affect the metrics.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  224. @Liza

    Valid thinking. There is no solution between money and power and the long term interest of society (valid systemic criticism) at this conjuncture of times. That said, Ron Unz neither, will not be able to come up with a solution that preserves prestige(if there is at all), quality of argument, and on the other side capitalizing on the gig. The proposition was impossible from the start. All the secondary arguments (formatting) were in place, but the expected content materialized was not considered. Neither was the technological macro structure of power play, to which Ron subscribed from the beginning. Rock and a hard place.

    Of course it became harder to hide the initial choice, further down the line. The audience(part of, the upper tier, participant as commenters or not) and the sponsors both, the shelf life of the product. To all this is apparent. Even then, the “thing”, “baby” if you prefer became exponentially hard to manage. The trade of between derivatives and utility to the owner must have Ron longing to find a dim buyer to take this unruly creation out of his hands.

  225. Truth3 says:
    @Lot

    Nice try Zhyd. You fool nobody.

    • Agree: Rurik
  226. schrub says:

    Charge away!!

    I look forward to Hasbara-ists and frequent posters like Fran and Aaron (et al) actually cringing and holding their noses when they have to pay UNZ to post their usual Israeli approved tripe. I wonder if they will also have to demand special dispensations from the ADL to be able to continue posting (and by doing so, financially supporting) such a “disapproved” site.

    Of course, they will probably claim that they are retired on five dollar (shekel?) a month pensions (or are handicapped, or homeless, or children of holocaust survivors) and demand that they be granted either free access or a special discounted rate.

    Colin, however, is another matter since he apparently has unlimited free time for posting and actually seems to virtually live on this site. Maybe we should all chip in and buy him a (metaphorical) cot and sleeping bag to make his stay here more comfortable!

    What charging will accomplish will be to certainly separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. Go ahead and do it. As a right wing sites get more popular, these fakes soon appear and overwhelm their comments sections and by doing so drive away newer readers.

    • Agree: Tusk
    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  227. cctgene says:

    For what it’s worth, I start my day with your site. For the most part, I find your articles refreshing, thought provoking and different from most of the garbage on the Internet these days. However, being a retiree on a fixed income I’m forced to choose between wants and needs and if required to pay for this part, of my morning ritual, it would not fall within the needs category. Obviously then I would prefer to weed through various advertisements then to have no access at all.

  228. I am not averse to paying a reasonable fee, but as others have pointed out, this will lead to a potential loss of anonymity, and in the current atmosphere of anti-conservative hatred many people will fear loss of earnings, social circles etc.

  229. @Kratoklastes

    Please continue your espresso binges. I’ve been following your comments, cutting & saving the ones on religion and the futility of politics (I’m recovering from both “grifts”).

    Consider blogging.

  230. Rurik says:
    @mark green

    Please don’t charge me for my efforts.

    With that in mind, I do think that you should 1) invite financial contributions more aggressively than you now do, 2) permit (some) ads, and 3) launch an UNZ Review collection of hats, T-shirts, mugs, etc. If that all fails to raise sufficient revenus, then maybe a monthly subscription service would be the way to go.

    Thank you, Ron. You’re doing extraordinary work.

    Yes, I too am a heavy user, and would be loath to provide digital fingerprints beyond what’s already available.

    I’m in agreement with your sentiments, including your plaudits to Mr. Unz. (even if I do wince whenever he uses the word ‘deranged’. That sort of stings, for some reason ; )

    And I also agree with Workingclass’s feelings about Google.

  231. RudyM says:

    I want to echo the comments some others have made about the value of the comments themselves. In some cases, I have found the comments threads as valuable as the articles. Some of the longer comments threads following historical articles have been of remarkably high caliber. Ron himself has noted this. It seems perverse to charge commenters for commenting, when many of them contribute so much to this site. (I admit, I am not one of them.)

    I naively never seriously considered the possibility that this site was intended as a business venture. I hope PeterOldSack’s intuitions are incorrect.

    “The temple is holy because it is not for sale.”

    (But someone might less sympathetically say I just believe in the Internet of Gibs.)

    • Agree: Durruti
  232. Art says:
    @Durruti

    The Saker periodically asks for -and receives $Financial Help from Friends. Surely Unz, and his Associates can raise enough $$ this way.

    Twenty years ago, LewRockwell.com had a Jew money-man sugar daddy, bringing in the funds. Of course, the upshot was that there were no anti-Jew anti-Israel articles published. (Amazing – one Jew stole the liberty and freedom of the whole intellectual libertarian community for years and years.) Sense then, the guy died and LewRockwell.com now publishes some anti-Israel articles. In part, he now gets revenue by selling books through Amazon.

    Perhaps Ron could find someone to fund raise for liberty.

  233. @Baltimore resident

    A soft paywall would be easy to work around, trivially so, and this is the site where Anatoly Karlin once explained how to pirate various forms of content from around the web. In others words, it wouldn’t accomplish anything at all.

    When that fails, does Ron Unz turn to a hard paywall with readers creating accounts and logging in? That will lead to the creation of a single database, an inviting target for a hacker who could turn around and post our personal information online.

    You’re right about privacy already being compromised for all but the most tech savvy and vigilant. But let’s minimize problems as best we can, please. More anonymity is better, not less, especially with regards to the Unz Review.

    Maybe this site is better off at the size and scope it already is — still small enough to fly under the radar while disseminating controversial information to a respectable number of readers. That’s “respectable” as in being comparable to leading opinion magazines, as Ron Unz himself likes to claim.

  234. Alfa158 says:

    It is pretty difficult to not be a heavy user of this site, especially once retired and with the time available. The reason for the heavy usage is that Ron has succeeded in his goal of building a site with an enormous amount of content covering a wide range of subjects and viewpoints, much of it of great depth and/or not available elsewhere. It’s like drinking from a firehose.
    Just bringing in Steve Sailer has doubled the time I spend on the site. God Heavens, look at the New York Times, only one source of many. Their enormous resources are beavering away in his service cranking out a torrent of Sailerbait material on an almost daily basis.
    I will go along with whatever Ron’s final decision is. It would be a particular incentive if we knew that some of the increased revenue would would be passed on to the writers.
    I would just echo the cautions already made:

    Be careful of either the advertising sources or the payment channels. These have been used effectively to de-platform or de-monetize dissident sites. They may be trying to ignore Unz.com now in order to keep it from coming to more people’s attention, but if it comes to it, they will go from the occasional DDoS attack to more extreme measures. You can see what has been done to sites with less resources.

    The payment process needs to be trustworthy and I don’t know enough about it to judge how safe they are from people going after the contributors.

    Whatever, count me in.

  235. @Durruti

    You, also support censorship?

    Not at all. Quite the opposite. Does my statement give that impression? I’d actually like to see a Durruti Column on UR (representing the anarchist viewpoint). Well the time is that UR seems to be at a crossroads, looking to go mainstream and commercial. As you say, if it does that it will not be the same any more.

    • Agree: Durruti
  236. peterAUS says:
    @PetrOldSack

    I hear you.

    Let’s put it this way: as soon as the payment is introduced the site will change. That change is the primary objective; financial reasons aren’t even secondary.

    Good.

  237. niceland says:

    May I suggest a paypal donation button for unz.com

    It would be a friendly reminder to us users that there is no free lunch, so to speak. Paypal donation wouldn’t reveal username or indeed anything, and should someone ask why:


    Unz.com has interesting online book collection not to mention treasure trove of magazine articles dating back to 1850. Invaluable source of information about the U.S. political history and more. There is nothing wrong with supporting such endeavor, on the contrary it’s a respectable thing to do, a little payback for the enormous work behind it.

    Perhaps someone wrote something controversial on unz.com, that’s not my problem, guilt by association is logical fallacy.

  238. @Stirner

    This is exactly what I proposed (several times) to Taki’s daughter when they took the “world famous” comments behind a paywall. Let the comments remain visible (as they were great) and, if someone feels strongly enough about an issue they want to spend the time and effort to comment, they will spend perhaps a small amount of money, too.

    A dollar per comment, say, would have the added benefit of improving the quality of the comments, too, I imagine. People would probably spend more time on their comments and would be more likely to refrain from posting fluff or personal attacks if it cost them a buck to do it. But if you have something substantive to add to the conversation, you’ll probably pony up.

    Ron could further incentivize payments (and help steer content toward the stronger currents of public discourse) if the option were provided to designate 25 or 50 cents of the comment cost to the authors, though that would mean a somewhat more complicated system. As it is, the buck-a-comment system could be implemented fairly simply by tokenizing a user’s identity, then using a payment option like Stripe so that no one’s credit card information ever needed to touch the unz.com server.

    Taki’s daughter didn’t bother responding to my suggestions as, I suspect, she was happy to get all those potentially socially awkward views safely out of sight. She lacks the appreciation Taki has for the intellectual thumb in the eye–an appreciation not in short supply here on Unz.

    Now, would I pay a buck to post this? Yeah, poor as I am, I would.

  239. @flashlight joe

    One of the first things I learned when typing my thoughts into a computer, is to behave as if my mother were looking over my shoulder

    What’s the deal with your mother? Was she a real ballbuster?

    • LOL: Alfred
  240. @Lot

    Compliment. Ships have complements.

    • LOL: Lot
  241. I have no idea how many pages I view in a month, but I can say this is one of the best, most trustworthy sites on the net. It has very few equals, and possibly none. I usually peruse Unz.com on a daily basis.

    I probably comment (guessing) in the neighborhood of 50 times per month.

    I do not have a lot of money, but I’d be happy to share a bit with this site.

  242. @schrub

    ‘Charge away!!

    I look forward to Hasbara-ists and frequent posters like Fran and Aaron (et al) actually cringing and holding their noses when they have to pay UNZ to post their usual Israeli approved tripe…’

    Well, there’s actually a problem here. While I’m all for hampering Hasbara and Hasbarim, what charging will do is discourage not just them but anyone who disagrees with Ron ideologically from posting. I might be willing to pay — while I don’t exactly agree with everything Ron advances, I don’t especially mind him promoting it.

    However, those who did mind would hardly want to effectively encourage him by paying him to operate his site. The result would be a rapidly declining diversity of views, as the commentariat would increasingly come to be dominated by the ‘preach it Brother Unz chorus.’

    It wouldn’t be very interesting.

    • Agree: Dissident
  243. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t want to discourage comments. He wants to discourage a certain type of comment. For example, I think that he heartily welcomes most of your comments while wishing to discourage about 75% of mine.

    You mean he’d really like to censor opinions he doesn’t like but he doesn’t want to be seen to be doing so? In other words he’s just like everyone else. He believes in freedom of speech but doesn’t really think it should apply to people he disagrees with?

    If that’s his intention he is choosing absolutely the worst way to do it. He’ll end up with just as many crazies and trolls as he has now but he’ll have chased away the thoughtful commenters.

    And to be brutally honest, in general the comments here are a hell of a lot better and more interesting than the articles. Most of the articles are puerile or they’re simply rants. Most of the “writers” here are here because they can’t get published elsewhere, not because they’re controversial but because they’re nuts. There are three or four really good writers here and that’s about it.

    I think Mr Unz will discover that most people come here for the lively discussions in the comment sections, not for the articles. He seems to be aiming to destroy the one great asset that the site has.

  244. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Willem

    If I should ever need to pay for the writers here, I for sure would be one of the first to drop out.

    Yep. I would actively object to being coerced into financially supporting some of these tired old political hacks, third-rate failed journalists and out-and-out lunatics.

  245. g b says:
    @TimeTraveller

    Took the words out of my finger, agree.

  246. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    The only people affected would be those who visit a very large number of pages AND leave endless comments. And frankly, quite a few of those are annoying trolls whom I’d anyway like an excuse to finally eliminate. Maybe these changes wouldn’t generate much revenue, but if they got rid of various longtime trolls, they’d certainly be worth it.

    Suggestion:

    Limiting comments per user per month to 100-120 (possibly excluding comments on Unz.com bloggers pages/posts).

    I was one of the heaviest users of Unz.com in 2017 and 2018, but never averaged more than 75 monthly comments during that time, i.e. about 900 comments a year.

    Setting the limit on a monthly basis gives some flexibility to commenters, as to whether they want to heavily comment/go “all in” on one topic/article in a short span of time or rather spread their comments over several articles/topics over the entire month.

    I think this will discipline commenters in terms of the quality of their comments and cut down on compulsive (“dopamine hit”) commenting, in my opinion.

    Has dopamine got us hooked on tech?
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopamine-got-us-hooked-on-tech-facebook-apps-addiction

    I also agree with commenter “Crawfurdmuir”, but it’s, obviously, your call, Mr. Unz:

    It seems to me that charging people to comment may result in a similar drop in traffic for The Unz Review.

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/monthly-fees-for-heavy-users/#comment-3596416

    [MORE]

    How We Chase Dopamine: Porn, Social Media, and Alcohol | Steven Kotler

  247. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    You mean he’d really like to censor opinions he doesn’t like

    I think this is a lesser consideration, but he obviously doesn’t care much for anything other than fanboy adulation. He doesn’t like discussion and forum-like comments. He has some sort of word count fetish and likes long vacuous pieces that support and expound on the JQ. Free content is another plus.

  248. Ron Unz says:
    @reezy

    if you happen to see this, would you mind telling me what my usage levels are?

    Really quite moderate, at least recently. I think most of the very heavy users, some of whom are probably paid trolls, know perfectly well who they are, though they pretend not to.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  249. Ron Unz says:
    @Willem

    And the people who spend hundreds to thousands of hours here: you sure that these people are only one person?

    Actually, I was talking about users who had many thousands of *pageviews* per month, which is obviously quite different. As far as I can tell, almost nobody spends more than about 150-200 *hours* per month on this website. But that’s an enormous amount of time, basically a full-time job. Which leads me to suspect that in some causes that’s exactly what it is.

    Given the distinctive styles of those ultra-heavy users, I tend to think they’re just individuals rather than teams, probably in some cases paid by the hour and in other cases paid by the comment.

    Either way, forcing them to pay through the nose would either finally drive them away or at least somewhat inconvenience them. Obviously, they could just try to assume a different identity using various tricks, but I have some counter-tricks that might catch them. So their ADL/SPLC paymasters would either have to start funding the website, which would surely be quite humiliating if it came out, or perhaps reassign them elsewhere, and bring in fresh trolls instead.

    Anyway, it would be an interesting experiment.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  250. Ron Unz says:
    @ThreeCranes

    “Perhaps one should make it possible to pay commenters.”

    Exactly. Ron could gain renown and turn the internet on its head by arranging this site so that those commenters deemed to have made the most substantive and popular comments would be paid proportionally. This would create the most professional comment section on the net.

    That’s really an excellent idea that I hadn’t considered. And I think it might be fairly easy to implement, in a way that even the most paranoid commenter would find acceptable.

    Basically, commenters in that situation could provide a simple link to whatever payment method page they preferred: PayPal, Patreon, SubscribeStar, Bitcoin, whatever. And the link would be displayed with a “Support Me” message right next to the commenter’s Handle. Anyone who liked what the commenter was writing could just click on the link and pay whatever they wanted.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
    , @Brás Cubas
  251. Ron Unz says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    This is exactly what I proposed (several times) to Taki’s daughter when they took the “world famous” comments behind a paywall. Let the comments remain visible (as they were great) and, if someone feels strongly enough about an issue they want to spend the time and effort to comment, they will spend perhaps a small amount of money, too.

    A dollar per comment, say, would have the added benefit of improving the quality of the comments, too, I imagine. People would probably spend more time on their comments and would be more likely to refrain from posting fluff or personal attacks if it cost them a buck to do it. But if you have something substantive to add to the conversation, you’ll probably pony up….

    Now, would I pay a buck to post this? Yeah, poor as I am, I would.

    That’s another excellent idea, certainly worth considering. Just as you say, someone who feels strongly about something can probably afford spending $1 to publish it, and it would certainly cut down on the annoying tendency for people to leave lots of short comments instead of longer, more substantive ones.

    I’d probably set it up so that maybe the first ten comments per month were free, but afterwards you had to sign up for some payment system. That way, casual visitors could begin commenting without even being aware of the payment requirement, and only get hit up for money after they’d gotten substantially involved. My guess is that probably 90% of the commenters would never even be asked to pay anything.

    And as partial compensation, once you sign up to pay for your additional comments, you can put in a donation-link of your own, so that people who really like your comments can pay you as well, just as I discussed upthread.

    Basically, there’s always a chance you could spend $1 to leave such an excellent, thoughtful comment that some reader would reward you with a payment of $100. Probably not a big chance, but a chance nonetheless.

  252. peterAUS says:
    @dfordoom

    He wants to discourage a certain type of comment.

    ….he’d really like to censor opinions he doesn’t like but he doesn’t want to be seen to be doing so?

    “They”, not “he”, actually.

    …he’ll have chased away the thoughtful commenters.

    Not necessarily. More in the “synch”, definitely.

    …. in general the comments here are a hell of a lot better and more interesting than the articles.

    Yep.

    I think Mr Unz will discover that most people come here for the lively discussions in the comment sections, not for the articles.

    He, or better, “they”, already know that. That’s the point of the exercise in the first place.

    He seems to be aiming to destroy the one great asset that the site has.

    Again, depends on the viewpoint. What some people can see as destruction, some others will see as necessary, even desirable.

    Free will at work. His/”theirs” to change the pub; visitors’ to change the pub.

    As for me, personally, in spite of my, almost fundamental, disagreeing with the owner and most of the authors/commentators I’d pay, willingly, 20$ per month. It’s 5 coffees when going out.
    Just me, for a very simple reason: moderation.
    If the money could change hands between him/his admin, in person.

    But, no way I am going to pay over the Internet. Guys who believe it won’t affect their privacy are for a rude awakening sooner or later.
    At the moment, only a developed state-level player can, say, “dox” us.
    When any online payment scheme goes live the number of players will increase. Dramatically.

  253. I think you are off track wanting to charge per comment or per hour of use. That would severely clamp down on free exchange.

    If you really feel the need to collect money, then charge everyone a 5 dollar per month fee. Anything higher would be too exclusionary.

    And if you kept it at 5 for everyone, you’d make plenty of money on that.

    You are correct in that you have a unique and remarkable site going here, but putting a pay wall around it? I would say don’t do it: whatever kind of paywall will screw it all up.

    So the very lightest of paywalls is something you should try first. 5 bucks a month is your first step.

    Please consider this.

  254. I think on the whole, it’s at least worth trying a semi-voluntary scheme.

    Anyone who visits the site more than a minimum number of times per month would have to ‘subscribe’. How much he would pay would be up to the subscriber; I think most people would honestly pay what they felt was fair and what they felt comfortable with.

    Most of the alternatives to this have drawbacks of their own. If it doesn’t work, then go to some more demanding formula — but I’d like to see this at least tried.

  255. @Ron Unz

    I just wanted to publicly state that I think these are all excellent ideas.

  256. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    I’d probably set it up so that maybe the first ten comments per month were free, but afterwards you had to sign up for some payment system. That way, casual visitors could begin commenting without even being aware of the payment requirement, and only get hit up for money after they’d gotten substantially involved. My guess is that probably 90% of the commenters would never even be asked to pay anything.

    I like the idea, but 10 free comments per month is a much too low threshold, imo.

    I would start testing with 100 free comments per month and if the problems persist lower the paywall threshold to 75 free comments, etc. and keep testing until a “Nash equilibrium” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium is achieved, i.e. Unz.com traffic doesn’t collapse while at the same time (free) compulsive/(paid) trollish commenting is reduced.

  257. @Lot

    Thoughtful comment, but I’ll quibble that the State of Israel cannot be an example of high white fertility because it is not a predominantly white country and never has been.

    As you know, the residents of Israel are almost all one of these three groups: (1) Ashkenazi Jews, who are typically substantial-minority white european genetically (more italian than anything else by far, apparently) but half or more nonwhite (Semitic); (2) Sephardic Jews, who are Semitic and not white European; and of course (3) Arab Muslims, but they’re not who you meant.

  258. @Lot

    Leftists or at least anti-white people are deeply ensconced in the executive and judicial branches no matter who is president these days.

  259. Miggle says:

    Our webzine motto has always been to provide “Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media,” and I think we have fulfilled that mission, thereby benefiting from the growing climate of intolerance and censorship afflicting so many elements of the traditional media and even its Internet offshoot.

    Ron, what you have achieved is fabulous. And though I totally shun paywall sites your idea of focusing on the loudest mouths is a good one.

    Re advertising, if it becomes fabulously profitable it will alter your brain, you will no longer step out of line. And that will spell the end.

    Re both ends of the Left-Right spectrum, and as the evils of the Jews are the subject of many articles and comments here, maybe, maybe, maybe an article with a title like For the Love of Jews, not by Israel Shamir but by someone from the Addled Defamation League, allowing comments, would be a good idea. The more they argue their absurd case the more absurd they appear, but let’s look at both sides.

    Anyway, thanks heaps. This site is fabulous.

  260. Miro23 says:
    @Ron Unz

    A dollar per comment, say, would have the added benefit of improving the quality of the comments, too, I imagine. People would probably spend more time on their comments and would be more likely to refrain from posting fluff or personal attacks if it cost them a buck to do it. But if you have something substantive to add to the conversation, you’ll probably pony up….

    You can’t fault Unz.com for creativity. Just present a problem and read the comments.

  261. @peterAUS

    If you lived in Palo Alto then you could go up to him on the street and say: “Hey Ron here’s 20 bucks for this month, I’m handle so and so on your review”.

    My witticism would start costing me some for trying to inject these short snippets of humour. Here we all are speculating what he’s up to. It’s his site, he can do what he wants. But any tinkering and bringing money into play will completely change it. For starters it won’t be a free speech site any more, literally not “free”.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @peterAUS
  262. @Ron Unz

    What about a list of over the top commenters? Readers could block them. – You could charge people to make use of such a list.

  263. anonymous[222] • Disclaimer says:

    If E Michael Jones’ thesis (which oddly enough coincides with concept behind 1st amendment) is correct, that ability to speak critically defuses impulse to act violently, then Department of Homeland Security should have Unz forum on contract.

  264. @Ron Unz

    I have always thought I should be paid. If you do that please moderate personal ad hominem attacks by commentators to other commentators, that have nothing to do with the articles content.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  265. @Ron Unz

    Ron that is such BS. No hasbara is being paid. I and I doubt Aaron or Lot.
    What and why do you think this? I have posted exactly who I am in real life.

  266. @peterAUS

    I mentioned earlier, and I would stress again that, although the handles we use for posting comments here do obscure our identities to the casual enquirer, they obscure us not at all to tech companies, proficient hackers, data mining firms, and government agencies. The vultures of the Web are long past needing to find a real name alongside a comment to know who posted the comment, or to see a name on a credit card payment to UR to know that a given person holds certain political views.

    Moreover, our personal information is already routinely offered online by hackers, and in direct private interaction by tech companies, to entities willing to pay for it. It’s their business model.

    Protection against doxxing comes from mutual respect among humans, from lack of interest in the practice, and from the fear of adverse consequences. The absence of doxxing should be understood in this light, and not as proof that any person’s activities involving electronic communications systems have successfully remained anonymous.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @TimeTraveller
  267. Ron Unz says:
    @Commentator Mike

    PeterAUS: But, no way I am going to pay over the Internet. Guys who believe it won’t affect their privacy are for a rude awakening sooner or later.
    At the moment, only a developed state-level player can, say, “dox” us.

    If you lived in Palo Alto then you could go up to him on the street and say: “Hey Ron here’s 20 bucks for this month, I’m handle so and so on your review”.

    Hmmm…

    “PeterAUS” is certainly one of our most prolific commenters, having written 700,000 words over the last few years. My casual impression is that a large fraction of them tend to denounce Russia and “conspiracy theories” while defending Jews and Israel.

    He generally seems to spend something like 100 hours per month on this website, with a couple of thousand monthly pageviews, and maybe 150-200 comments, usually rather long-winded ones.

    I wonder what he actually does for a living…

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  268. Kali says:
    @Durruti

    Depends on your deffinintion of “censorship” really.
    In this case, if Unz rejecting your scrawlings for publication is what you call “censorship”, then yeah, I’m all for it.
    But given that you still have the freedom to comment (some would say troll) on this website, it’s obvious that you are not being censord. Simply not being given a platform created by someone else upon which to enthrall a growing readership with your “wisdom” cannot really be described as censorship in the conventional meaning of the word.

    And if you really do have something of value to say, then make your own website and publish there. You’ll gain readership if your site is worth reading.

    In the meantime, stop whining because Ron doesn’t rate your writing. You only come off as bitter and of frigile ego.

  269. Patricus says:

    Thank you Ron Unz for this marvelous site. There are very few web sites that I would consider paying for and this is number one. I’m trying to figure out how much I should pay. It isn’t obvious to me from my rapid scan of the many comments. Any thoughts for a reasonable monthly payment? I would prefer to mail a lump sum check because of so many past problems with automated deductions from a credit card. I saw the mailing address in one of the comments. I think I first visited this site a couple of years ago.

    Please keep the comments. Most are ridiculous but there are very good ones, and it is easy with a glance to disregard the bad ones. I’m in the habit of ignoring writers who do not accept comments.

    Your links to the revisionists of WW II, the Holocaust, etc. have enlightened me.

  270. I have heard it said that the US Communist Party could only exist after the fifties because the FBI picked up the tab of party dues and the Daily Worker through its planted agents. A pay to comment system would be nothing for the Trolls and even cited by them as a productivity indicator for bonuses whereas it would penalize and discourage genuine commenters. And the comments are a large part of the value of the UNZ report.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  271. @Ron Unz

    Ron, first of all I would like to thank you for running this website as long as you have. Your work, particularly the American Pravda series, has radically changed my understanding of the world. History is so much clearer, and the predicaments we face are now easily placed in their appropriate context.

    I want to offer an alternative perspective on Unz.com. You may not realize this yet, but this site is revolutionary. I do not see it as merely another website, but as a technological innovation which will change the course of history. Unz.com is the antidote to the anonymous tyranny of sites like Wikipedia. It allows submissions from authors with radically differing perspectives on the same issue to coexist, thereby giving the reader the freedom to discern the probable truth for themselves. It does not infantilize its readers like Wikipedia by forcing a consensus via biased anonymous “editors”, whose partisan motivations are hidden in the edit history of articles and thus not immediately visible.

    Thus, Unz.com is the digital library I have been looking for since the launch of the internet. Your digitization of groundbreaking and banned works, such as Kevin MacDonald’s books and the Holocuast Handbooks, is revolutionary.

    I can spend much more time going into detail as to why this site is not like any other on the internet, but my point is that you should seriously consider the monetization of the site in light of these facts. This is not another digital publication. It is not just another website. This is the beginning of the realization of the original promise of truly free information exchange via the internet. As such, I believe that restricting access to the site itself for the sake of profit and/or server costs would be a terrible tragedy.

    I am all for restricting the commenting capacity of non-subscribers, and any other non-essential perks. But the digital library and articles should remain free if this site is to realize its true potential. I myself rarely or ever comment, except in unique circumstances. But I read about 60% of all articles posted, as well as many of the books in the digital library. Furthermore, given the risks of espousing some of the inconvenient truths espoused on this site, subscribers would likely wish to keep their identities and payment information private. As such, anonymous payment methods should be made available for subscribers to ease these concerns.

    Thanks once again, and please realize that this is not just another website. It is the future of information distribution on the internet, and a beacon of hope in a sea of tyranny.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  272. Would someone please define what a “troll “ is?

    • LOL: Zumbuddi
  273. Free access to Unz for those who financially support source publications such as VDARE and Occidental Observer?

  274. Ronnie says:

    I think that by telling people what we contribute and why, we may increase the number of contributors. That is the goal after all. I look at all the articles on the site and read many of them. I have a full-time job but don’t sleep much thankfully. I have contributed $20 per month via Patreon for some time and intend to continue. I greatly value this site and agree with most of the contributors about foreign policy and politics in general. I tend to believe that people who do not appreciate this site are brainwashed and ill-informed. I am not a huge Trump supporter but cannot get very enthusiastic about the competition. Because of my background and education I basically agree with much of what Ron Unz writes. The best way I can describe the content of Unz.com is to say that it presents a view of reality that the CIA, government, deep states and MSM would not like us to explore. I want to expose all sides of an argument and never read a conspiracy theorist that I did not appreciate in some way. I rarely read the comments in Unz.com except by accident when I go to write a short comment myself (about something that really interests me) and I do not even check to see if my comment was published. So, I do not really care what you do about comments. It seems to me that many prolific commentators are irrational Israel-supporters as is the case in most comments sections in the USA press and I automatically ignore these comments but might scan them to see if any new canards or malignant strategies are being proposed. I also subscribe to the NY Times, Haaretz and The Nation because I usually learn something by reading them. I particularly appreciate the alternative views of Haaretz and rt.com where I often go after Unz.com.

  275. Pericles says:
    @Ron Unz

    And if this website can’t be publicly attacked or demonized, how can any ordinary person get into serious trouble for contributing to it? I really doubt that any of you are as tempting a target as Trump advisor Stephen Miller…

    It happens not infrequently (though probably less now that media have given up on comment pages). But it’s of course about trawling up a lot of tiddlers rather than trying to harpoon the Great Jew Whale.

    For example, I do recall tens of thousands of unacceptable Swedish commenters getting publically named by leftist hackers a few years ago, through exploiting that Disqus lacked acceptable security practices. And as we know, in Europe this can even get legally problematic for the victim.

    More recently, I believe a retired old grandma got fined for writing on FB that Somalians have a lower average IQ than Swedes. The truth is apparently not a defense around here.

    Anyway, it can get unpalatable.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  276. Pericles says:

    Nagging about joining for reading is unattractive but improved commenting privileges might be worth paying for. Perhaps $5-10 per month seems like a pretty standard rate. How much is Netflix?

    However, I’m concerned about what happens when the database of my payment info linked with my real world name and address gets dumped onto the net at a later date though, or combed through by various nasties, or managed by an untrustworthy third party. (My apologies, but you seem to have a somewhat lackadaisical attitude towards security. And I’d expect this site to become a target.)

  277. @Audacious Epigone

    Sounds like it would be extremely painful for contributors

  278. @anonymous

    “I will not participate in any payment mechanism that will reduce anonymity.”

    What Unz has created here is valuable. Looking for someway to cover costs is reasonable. There are those of us employed in industries where visiting sites like Unz Review could be considered a sign of bad character, which might be followed by decreased opportunities. I cast my vote for annoying advertisements.

  279. @ivegotrythm

    Agree, more concise: if the commenters that marry unconventional, and quality of argument, would have been left alone, the site would have been way more elite. Escobar and Vltcheck would have never even considered. The audience would have been probably smaller, but way more precious to data miners, unz.com could have made history.

    But then… bye, bye, growth of the audience, bye, bye sponsors, bye bye take-over, merger, capitalizing of any sort. Then ultimately unz.com would have been taken down. An historic feat it would have been, a shadow cabinet of certain value, that draws competent commenters, christalized knowledge, lesser interest for trolls and paid – sponsored writers and commenters, since the audience would be immune to the primate paddling now done. That would have been auto-censuring, the sort that builds prestige on cognitive value, and ethical stances.

    The policies of unz.com resemble the policies of immigration down here in the US, more people, more revenue, more political control. Ultimately unz.com is shaped into a tool to prang the voting. There is a difference between ripening, maturing and rotting.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  280. peterAUS says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Here we all are speculating what he’s up to.

    Yes. Some of us, though, who’ve been on the Internet since it went live, have a pretty good idea what “he’s up to”. Experience.
    This isn’t the first “alt” online pub; will it be the last we’ll see. I’ve just seen the same game played before. You know…”if it quacks….”.

    It’s his site, he can do what he wants.

    Of course. At the same time, readers and commentators can do the same.

    ….bringing money into play will completely change it.

    That’s the idea.
    Hehe….care to speculate why the need to change it? No need to post it here. Just think about it.

    This was coming for some time, but, timing is good. For the “changers”, I mean. They know what they are doing.

    And, as for the owner’s comment below, although I prefer not engaging with you here it is:

    Hmmm…

    “PeterAUS” is certainly one of our most prolific commenters, having written 700,000 words over the last few years. My casual impression is that a large fraction of them tend to denounce Russia and “conspiracy theories” while defending Jews and Israel.

    Dumb.

    He generally seems to spend something like 100 hours per month on this website, with a couple of thousand monthly pageviews, and maybe 150-200 comments, usually rather long-winded ones.

    You know, your monitoring software/algorithm/Google Analytics/your own scripts are shit. That 100 hour is simply ludicrous.

    Listen, you and your mates can do with this pub whatever you want, but I am really disappointed with your selling pitch. Do you really believe I spend 100 hours on this site?!?
    Oh, wait, I think I know, actually: you can’t multitask. Most of the coders can’t.
    Some of the guys above pointed to how those 100 hours can come up in your calculations, but, boy, are you wrong. Met service probably believes I spend 16 hours per day on their site too…if they are dumb, that is. E-mail provider, business-wise, “knows” I spend 24 hours on their site too……..
    Now…if you are so wrong in the core of your profession….well…..

    I wonder what he actually does for a living…

    Of course. Any person with a basic common sense and a bit of perception would get it in 10 minutes reading some of my comments.

    But, as for this initiative I do give you credit: good move. Timing in particular.
    And you know what: I, actually, think it’s not a bad move. Not joking. Yes, guys like me won’t be here anymore, but, that’s, maybe, not so bad, in a big scheme of things. Could help “our” cause; could not. I am 50/50 there

    Like, in the world of practical politics, we should be engaging with at this stage, free speech is a bit overrated. Something like that.
    Now, I am sure you won’t get it but some of the people behind/around you will.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Durruti
  281. Ron
    Excellent website, worth paying for..

    Question: I came here originally to read Steve Sailer. Since that’s my primary landing spot and since Steve runs occasional panhandling posts, as he calls them, I support him. My logic is that I no longer subscribe to magazines, and since he produces at least a magazine’s worth of reading,I’ve simply switched my sub cash over to him.

    If you institute a pay fee, how will that affect contributions to individual writers? Will people decide, well I’m already paying no need to send in a contribution to one guy?

    Also, I do linger on some other writers here, such as yourself, Derbyshire and AudEp, and some of the pdf’s. It is a unique site, and pardon the question, but have you considered what happens when you, ah, um, ascend to a higher plane? Legacy plan in place? That’s one reason to come up with a paying proposition…the site may be able to continue after you no longer do. Sorry!

    Tim

  282. @dfordoom

    Freedom of speech is a retarded incoherent liberal concept, no one should support it. It’s only useful as rhetoric to damage the prevalent power structure, right thinking people would have zero use for it if they hadn’t long ago made the mistake of allowing it for anti-human ideologues who more accurately understood the concept (as being purely a weapon, not a coherent ideal, nonetheless an unalloyed good).

    75% of the commentary on this site is absolute clueless garbage, if this is a ploy to eliminate said trash he’s totally in the right.

    The majority of the readership doesn’t care about the comments. You’re projecting your own enjoyment of engaging in flaccid slap-fights onto normal readers.

  283. Zumbuddi says:
    @DarkTriumvir

    AGREE

    Glad you posted that insight: Unz is not just another well-run site, it’s revolutionary.

    Thanks Ron.

  284. peterAUS says:
    @Baltimore resident

    Good comment. Agree.

    One tidbit, maybe: if one is REALLY good and willing to spend decent time/energy he/she can protect his/her privacy re doxxing, against “casual enquirer, tech companies, proficient hackers and data mining firms”, NOT against government agencies.

    Average “IT” person, I feel around 90% of commentators here are, only against “casual enquirer, some tech companies and some data mining firms”.

  285. You allow a fictitious email, but now you don’t mind that financial institutions will link our real names to your site? Did TPTB threaten you in some way? If I put my anonymity in danger, will you kick Fred Reed permanently off your site? Now THAT’s what I call fair use.

  286. @Ron Unz

    “I wonder what he actually does for a living…”

    Funny that you attached ellipsis to a comment about PeterAUS.

    But to a larger point and touching on Mark Green’s comment @165 — for some of us, researching, reading, attending conferences, hosting authors, creating events, even traveling to learn about the topics IS what we “do for a living,”

    Rather in contrast to Ron’s analysis of what people should contribute based on what they could earn if they didn’t spend time reading/writing on this forum, no one pays us to do any of this (nor does anyone force us); some of us have supported writers that Unz provides a platform for.

    I spend more on books and conferences than many have suggested as appropriate monthly contributions. I view such efforts as my (vain) attempt to dilute the toxic media soup and foreign policy quagmire we live in.

    Moreover, there are actual communities taking shape via Unz Forum. Some of us have met in person, and having met, have joined forces to sponsor events, writers, speakers, etc.

    All things considered, I think a contribution to the support of the Unz Forum is the right thing to do, kind of mutually assured benefit — or destruction.

    On the other hand, it was embarrassing when Ron quoted a comment of mine, twice, in the original, “I’m thinking about advertising or something” article: Exposed! I was: I spend an awful lot of time reading and commenting here — 5 times more than Mark Green who considers himself a “heavy user” and who is a far more disciplined writer than I am. If a pay-for-play structure were imposed, it might force me to curb my addiction, but unlike other addictions, my life would be less rich without my daily dose of Unz.

    As others have expressed, it would be preferable to contribute without exposing real identities — even tho NSA etc. have made that a technological pipe-dream.

  287. Wrench says:

    I turn a wrench for a living and I’d be happy to pay

  288. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    How about a Stock Ticker style of ad just underneath the site title and topic banner?

    Let readers and visitors pay to have their sites, articles, products, or whatever promoted on the ticker display. They could pay on daily, weekly, or monthly basis.

    Such ad would take up little space: Just a strip below the site title.

    [MORE]

  289. Ron Unz says:
    @Pericles

    For example, I do recall tens of thousands of unacceptable Swedish commenters getting publically named by leftist hackers a few years ago, through exploiting that Disqus lacked acceptable security practices. And as we know, in Europe this can even get legally problematic for the victim.

    Maybe I just don’t pay attention to such things, but I’m curious if there’s have been any cases in America of non-prominent people getting into significant trouble for their comments on websites.

    There have certainly been lots of stories in the media but those almost always involve:

    (1) Someone, usually a prominent celebrity, sending out a “controversial” Tweet on his personal Twitter account and getting blasted by a horde of angry Tweeters.

    (2) Someone going crazy and shooting a bunch of people, after which their Social Media accounts are heavily scrutinized for missed signs of their impending rampage.

    (3) Someone saying or doing something slightly “controversial” in public, as captured on video and distributed on Social Media, inciting an online lynch mob.

    (4) Someone deeply involved in various activist groups getting betrayed by former friends or associates. Or attending a public rally, with photos taken and distributed to his employer.

    Offhand, I can’t think of a single case in the U.S. in which simple online comments by an ordinary person (i.e. not an elected official or prominent public figure) have led to serious negative consequences. But maybe others here can point to some examples.

  290. Teleros says:

    I think I’d rather see a flat fee (eg $10 pcm) than an hourly rate, but so long as the site is up I’m happy.

  291. Ron Unz says:
    @peterAUS

    You know, your monitoring software/algorithm/Google Analytics/your own scripts are shit. That 100 hour is simply ludicrous…Do you really believe I spend 100 hours on this site?!?
    Oh, wait, I think I know, actually: you can’t multitask. Most of the coders can’t.
    Some of the guys above pointed to how those 100 hours can come up in your calculations, but, boy, are you wrong.

    Well, perhaps. But you’ve often generated thousands of pageviews on this website each month, which seems reasonably consistent with that time estimate. So maybe you’re just randomly clicking around on pages every 5 seconds or so for strange and eccentric reasons.

    But anyone who bothers clicking on your Commenter Archive can see the enormous volume of comments you have published, sometimes more than 250 in a single month. If you’re writing 200-250 comments in a month, doesn’t that require a good deal of time to read the various articles and also the comment-threads in which you’re responding and arguing with other people? Well, maybe you’re a lightning-fast reader.

    But your comments total some 700,000 words, which is the equivalent of writing 7 good-size books. Don’t authors claim it takes more than just a few dozen hours to write a 100,000 word book?

    Assuming that you’re not currently being paid to hang around this website and write 700,000 words of comments which frequently denounce “conspiracy theories,” you really should contact various organizations, inform them of your tremendous talents, and start collecting a regular paycheck…

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  292. @Fran Taubman

    ‘I have always thought I should be paid. ‘

    ! You’re surreal.

  293. Anon[398] • Disclaimer says:

    All comments of an anti-Semitic nature should cost $1000 and if you make more than 3 negative comments toward God’s Chosen People you should be banned and reported to the authorities as an anti-Semite.

  294. @Ron Unz

    ‘Maybe I just don’t pay attention to such things, but I’m curious if there’s have been any cases in America of non-prominent people getting into significant trouble for their comments on websites…’

    My own belief is that paranoia about such things is just a form of egotism.

    No one’s going to do anything about anyone’s posts unless they’re a prominent figure. It’d be like trying to kill all the world’s flies.

    No one cares what I say — and that has its points.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  295. peterAUS says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well maybe you’re just randomly clicking around on pages every 5 seconds or so for strange and eccentric reasons.

    Disappointing.

    …doesn’t that require a good deal of time to read the various articles and also the comment-threads in which you’re responding and arguing with other people?

    Not really. As I say, try “multitasking” one day. Or “breaks” and “micro-breaks” while doing something else.
    Which brings us to:

    Well, maybe you’re a lightning-fast reader.

    Aprox:
    Don’t read 90 % of articles. Skim read 5 % of articles. Read 5% of articles.
    Don’t read about 80 % of the comments. Skim read 15% of the comments. Read only 5 % of the comments.
    Read, always, some of the regulars. Get a feel for an “annon” in the first paragraph; from then it’s skip/skim/read.
    Makes sense?
    Try it one day, if you can.

    But your comments total some 700,000 words, which is the equivalent of writing 7 good-size books. Don’t authors claim it takes more than just a few dozen hours to write a 100,000 word book?

    Probably.
    They need to keep in “zone”. I am sure you, as a coder, would understand.
    When I post a comment I don’t need to be in the “zone”. Actually, it’s a break from a “zone” I need for my work/earning for a living. Which isn’t coding, BTW.

    …you really should contact various organizations, inform them of your tremendous talents, and start collecting a regular paycheck…

    Bad form.
    You don’t need to be smart, but try to be a gentleman.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  296. I sill have no answer on my question about the real prospects of advertisers flocking to announce on this site, but I will assume that they will, because Ron’s article seems to imply that. With that assumption, let me offer a new scheme suggestion (just recollecting, my previous suggestions were: (1) ads pure and simple; (2) both a paid, ad-free version and a free, with-ads version running simultaneously).

    My third suggestion is to have two kinds of readers: payers with unlimited access, and nonpayers. After a free number of page views (or comments written, as you seem to favor) per period, nonpaying readers will lose access to further views (or further commenting) and will be shown a message followed by the link to an ads-only-page; they will be granted x number of further views (or comments) per ad they visit on that page. In addition to that, you may have that link to the ads-only-page permanently placed on the home page, accessible to all readers; ad-clicking adds credits to nonpaying readers; these credits may expire after some time, or at the end of the month or whatever.

  297. Anon[234] • Disclaimer says:

    Most political magazines throughout history have traditionally been run on someone’s deep pockets. People will pay for news, but not hardcore in-depth political commentary. The amount of people interested in the latter has always been a much smaller number.

    Would I pay to comment? No. My budget doesn’t allow it. Not everyone’s as rich as Ron Unz. Who, I have heard, is quite well off. But you can’t take all that money to the grave with you, either.

    Does George Soros make his people shell out money for his schemes? Nope. He wouldn’t get any traction for his ideas if he did. He gets results because he puts his money on the table to make sure that what he wants, happens.

    You don’t get a revolution for free. Keep that in mind.

  298. @Ron Unz

    Well, there’s this, Ron:
    I’m not a bible-belter, but like many people I know some of the stories. E M Jones occasionally cites the story of the cure of the man born blind. His parents were afraid to talk about the cure “for fear of the Jews” in their own synagogue.

    I have to live in my neighborhood. If my neighbors knew what I read/think/write about every day, I would be ostracized from my own “synagogue” — neighborhood – community. When a neighbor opened a bookstore in the neighborhood, I was delighted — arranged for a friend/ author to come in, paid his travel, lodging; hosted him, the shopkeeper & other friends at dinner, etc. The shopkeeper sold a decent number of books.
    All good?
    No: turns out shopkeeper is the no-longer-practicing Jewish survivor-of-a-holocaust-survivor, eagerly anticipating next Israel-sponsored trip to Israel.
    Do I reveal to such a one even more of my beliefs?

    Another neighbor teaches holocaust ed. in an area public school. How can you possibly engage socially with such a person who lies to young people for a living?

    The alternative is to self-isolate.
    For fear of one’s own neighbors.

    Isn’t that what Atzmon has argued: the greatest power Jews have is the power to silence resistance to their power.

    Do I have the courage to come out of the closet in open resistance to “fear of the Jews?”
    Um, no.
    They’ve been at this a long long time.
    My puny efforts and ability to resist are a mosquito to their tiger. I’ll do the mosquito thing, but that’s it.

    Unz becomes the only “community” where it’s safe to be and say what one believes.

    The more the ADL represses people like me, the more people like me will flock to Unz.

  299. Anon[234] • Disclaimer says:

    One possibility is to set up UNZ to accept BAT tokens. Anyone who uses the Brave Browser can choose to tip websites with BAT tokens, which can be converted to cash. There’s a little tip triangle you can click on those sites. But you have to set up UNZ to accept it. The whole idea behind BAT is to give money to websites you actually use. UNZ really ought to have this feature anyway, which looks to become the wave of the future.

  300. Liza says:
    @dfordoom

    And to be brutally honest, in general the comments here are a hell of a lot better and more interesting than the articles. Most of the articles are puerile or they’re simply rants.

    Well, for heaven’s sake, there wouldn’t be any comments if there weren’t articles (bad or not) to comment on.

    Back to Takimag: I was not critical of those Takimag comments which were thin and unconvincing merely because they were short and didn’t seem to say much, but because so many of them were also jejune and cruel. So many of them were at the “Your mother wears army boots!” level. Mind you, a few of those are okay in any comment section, but for a magazine with mostly serious articles, the stupid comments were heavily overrepresented.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  301. I have been meaning to sign up and donate for a year. Guess I have been too lazy. I tried twice today and the Patreon page for Unz keeps getting hung up. Maybe this is a good sign that it is swamped with donors. Or it is a bad sign that it is getting sabatoged and hacked and “deplatformed.” Regardless, I will keep trying because I want to support this valuable source of information. Thank you Ron. Hopefully everyday awareness is spreading more and more.

  302. @anon

    Why does Unz review need to be “expanded”, how many more “revisionists” and professional “antisemites” (along with the occasional Stalinist and Maoist) are there to be published? They’re all writing essentially the same things, no need to add more of them.
    And imo most of your writers shouldn’t be paid anyway, given the low quality of their content.

    Charging frequent users strikes me as an insane idea…

    In other words:

    >The content of this website is terrible.

    >You spend a lot of time reading this terrible content

    >Therefore you shouldn’t have to pay for voluntarily choosing to read all of this terrible content

    There seems to be a… minor problem with your post in terms of coherence/ internal consistency; what those “Stalinists” and “Maoists” might call an “internal contradiction.”

    In more “capitalist” terms, perhaps you might wish to acquaint yourself with the concept of “revealed preference” — and its relationship to this.

    Just sayin’

    • LOL: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @anon
  303. peterAUS says:
    @peterAUS

    And, to make it clear (personal/political/ideological disagreement aside):

    You’ve done a good job, so far, here. This site has provided a good value for “us”, so far. “Us” as “deplorables”, I mean. White middle-class/working-class males, in the West. Sort of our online watering hole when we could, up to a point, “drink” what we want, even need. Our online therapy in the….hehe…” therapeutic state”. Sanctuary of common sense, of a sort.

    When you introduce any…any…paying scheme it won’t be the case anymore.

    But, as the comment .285 says, you know, you could’ve been great.
    True, could’be been made destitute, maybe even in prison, but….again….you could’ve been GREAT.

    Risk/reward.
    Small, average, big…great men. Oh, BTW, I am just an average fellow, of that “deplorable” type. Not big, definitely not great. I guess you could be seen, almost, as big.
    But…hehe…you…..you could’ve been great.

    Life, a?

  304. @Craig Nelsen

    A dollar per comment, say,

    Approves

  305. Muse says:
    @Ron Unz

    I would suggest what happened to Professor Eric Ferguson at IU constitutes serious trouble.

    http://www.rasmusen.org/special/2019kerfuffle/

    He has survived so far because he has tenure. Normal people that are dependent on an employer to fill their grail bucket to eat every week would be in serious trouble if they posted like Eric Ferguson did. For my family, we would lose clients, income and put my children’s welfare at risk if I were doxxed like Rasmussen, so I keep my mouth shut. People without lots of political clout and/or financial resources can not defend themselves from these attacks.

    Another prime example was the attack of the social justice warriors on Gibson’s Bakery when they detained and called police to arrest a black shoplifter. While not an online posting, Oberlin College went after them and nearly destroyed their livelihood. They survived because a law firm represented them on a contingency basis so they did not have to pay 6 million in legal expenses up front to defend themselves.

    Ron, I would suggest that your talent, productivity and subsequent wealth shield you from understanding the perspective of the typical working stiff. As I often say to my Ivy League wife, it is hard to understand the working man’s circumstances and subsequent mentality if you have not gotten drunk with him in his mobile home trailer once or twice. I don’t recommend the experience, but there are lessons to be learned. I believe that since so many Unz readers are concerned about privacy, you should consider giving it more weight. I find that your views regarding the privacy concerns of readers similar to your beliefs expressed over the years about immigration not being a problem for working class Americans.

    On the Southside of Chicago, nearly all of my black neighbors had heavy duty iron security doors, and this was at a rate far higher than the whites. They were not stupid. There was a reason for their behavior.

    Notwithstanding this criticism, I am grateful for you generously providing the Unz review.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Ron Unz
  306. JackOH says:
    @Colin Wright

    Agree, Colin, amen, bro’. Especially that “paranoia . . . is a form of egotism.”

    I find it remarkable that some of the folks here get all worked up about some “revolution” or other they expect to happen, or wish would happen, or something or other. Just one more indignity visited upon us, and, by gosh, we’ll all be storming the Beltway, or marching vicariously in a Charlottesville of the mind, or something or other. At the same time, they struggle to maintain anonymity, worry about doxing, and, golly, I hope that nasty Black woman in HR doesn’t find out I said something naughty about that sensitivity training session last week.

    Back to producing revenue. Merch? Swag? Discreet lapel pins (Unz.com) for some folks, baseball caps and tees for others?

    Guy or gal spots me wearing an Unz.com tee.

    Q: “JackOH, whuzzat?”

    JackOH: “Far-out California dude. It’s a magazine. Change your mind, save the world, all that.”

    Scenario #1, 3 weeks later.

    “Yo, JackOH, Unz.com is great! Thanks!”

    JackOH: “Cool! Y’know, it’s not everyone’s cuppa, and you gotta pick and choose a bit.”

    Scenario #2, 3 weeks later.

    “Yo, JackOH, Unz.com mother-fucker hates kikes and niggers! That ain’t right! You ain’t right, man!”

    JackOH: “Bullshit! You know goddamned well I don’t hate Jews and Blacks! I grew up with your former brother-in-law, Junior, I sold Cub Scout cookies to Jerry Smith’s mom when she was warming pumpkin seeds in the oven in the Southern Black manner of making a lot with a little, and I still get my subs from the descendants of Polish Jews down the street from me. Ron’s talking about people who are taking unfair advantage, and that’s worth talking about! No personal offense intended, bro’, but there’s no harm in talking about stuff, right?”

    I live in an extremely rough part of the U. S., I have sales and on-street political experience, so a lot of the comments here seem laughable. Plus, I’ve accrued pretty good influence in my community that’s disproportionate to my income. I don’t know what else to say.

  307. @Ron Unz

    You could claim a percentage of each commenter’ revenue to yourself. After all, they are using your infrastructure to make a buck.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  308. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Forrestal

    You spend a lot of time reading this terrible content

    No, I spent a lot of time reading the comment sections (mostly of some of the permanent blogs), which are the only decent parts of the site, because there’s open discussion and at least some regular commenters provide interesting information. And quite a few of those commenters worth reading are those “heavy users” who Ron Unz seems to imagine are mostly “paid trolls” (which seems quite paranoid to me, since the number of hardcore Zionist commenters on this site imo is maybe half a dozen, and in all probability not even they are paid by anyone), instead of appreciating that some of them have produced valuable content.
    By contrast, the majority of the published articles is quite simply garbage.
    imo Ron Unz misunderstands the appeal of the site to many readers, this scheme of charging commenters is insane. If he goes through with it, I hope it backfires spectacularly and destroys the site.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  309. How long before Patreon deplatforms The Unz Review?

    It has happened to others and I am sure the ADL is willing to try to get Patreon to do it.

  310. @Jim Christian

    Give it Ron, you’d only spend it on hookers and blow.

    (used that line while paying the Dentist last week.
    Had to dodge the mouthful of coffee.)

  311. peterAUS says:
    @Muse

    From

    ….Normal people….

    to

    ….a problem for working class Americans.

    Pretty much.

    One more thing: if Americans, with their system (Constitution etc…) have that problem, what about all those in the Western, and even some parts of Eastern, Europe?
    And the last, but, for obvious reasons not the least, how about those in Canada, AUSTRALIA, New Zealand and South Africa?

    Which brings us to the very intent behind the “change” in the first place. The primary objective, if you will. Not money, of course.

    All good.

    • Replies: @anon
  312. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    Do you think that Unz review is a honeytrap operation?
    It would be quite ironic if Unz himself was working for the ADL or some intelligence service, and the only purpose of this site is to collect incriminating material about “thought criminals”.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @peterAUS
  313. peterAUS says:
    @anon

    Pretty much.

    As for

    If he goes through with it, I hope it backfires spectacularly and destroys the site.

    what, for the sake of the conversation only, mind you, destroying the site is acceptable price in the bigger scheme of things?
    Like…….say…….Basij attacks in Iran-Iraq war? Or….First Battle of Smolensk (say, the site is Soviet 5th Mechanised Corps)?

    Or, in simple terms: you use an expendable unit to try to achieve an objective.

    Something like that.

  314. When this subject was discussed a year or two ago, I mentioned that I gave up my subscription to American Conservative after they fired Philip Giraldi, but that I would be willing to “subscribe” to Unz the same way, so many $ per year. I do check Unz every day, and have commented once or twice. But I think “subscription” would have to be voluntary. I can’t imagine how Unz would charge people to tune in. Perhaps a list of those who “subscribe” would shame those who read, but don’t contribute.

  315. @anon

    ‘… It would be quite ironic if Unz himself was working for the ADL or some intelligence service, and the only purpose of this site is to collect incriminating material about “thought criminals”…’

    …that wily Colin, cornered and caught at last.

    Seriously…maybe if I was anchoring Sixty Minutes they’d come after me — but I’m not, am I? Ron himself would be about the only target even close to worthwhile around here, and according to your hypothesis, he’s running the trap.

    No one cares. No.one.cares.

    Even if anyone did care, collectively there’s too many of us, and individually, we’re too insignificant. It’s best if they just leave us right where we are — in the rumpus room.

    Look, suppose they leave me alone. I go ahead and do right what I’m doing, preaching to an audience of dozens — most of whom more than agree with me to start with.

    Now, go after me somehow. Fifty or sixty people — most of whom thought everything was just fine until they dragged off that perfectly harmless Colin jus’ exercising his Constitutional Rights — are now doubting the official story.

    They’d have to be really dumb to do that. They’re not coming to get me, or you.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  316. peterAUS says:
    @anon

    Do you think that Unz review is a honeytrap operation?

    No, I do not.

    It would be quite ironic if Unz himself was working for the ADL or some intelligence service, and the only purpose of this site is to collect incriminating material about “thought criminals”.

    Well, the material IS being collected, by several interested parties, but I don’t really think that’s the owner’s intention.
    I could be wrong, of course.

    The problem with “alt-whatever” is that constant search (beats me…..) for the perfection. For The Leader, The Way….whatever.
    Like all of us, the man has good and bad characteristics. And a lot in between. The site too.

    It delivers something to some people, a lot to some else, minimum to some…etc.

    I disagree with the man on a lot of levels, BUT, respect the effort and the result, so far.
    This is the place where I can disagree with the owner and still keep posting. Look at this…………..

    Show me ONE other place where you can do that. Just one. And, this site has a very good moderation. Again…hehe…not perfect. BTW, who am I to say what’s perfect and not, a? Rule no 1: humans are imperfect. All else goes from there. Anyway….

    Pity is, maybe, that the site could’ve been much more. Yes, there was a great chance that in such a scenario the site wouldn’t exist. So………
    Still, pity.

    My point is that with the paying scheme a lot of people who do contribute and think about contributing will not. Some because of money; some because of increased risk of doxxing.
    Similar for reading.

    My gut feeling: the quality will drop. People who can lose, if doxxed, are, IMHO, capable of better contribution.

    As for “us” (I said who that “us” are; a lot of readers/commenters here are NOT “us”…), well, so far it’s been good enough. It will get worse. How much, guys willing to pay will see, won’t they?

  317. Art says:

    The end of 2019 is here – governments all over the world are in flux, bordering on collapse.

    2020 is going to be a tumultuous year – The Unz Review is coming into its own – doing anything to diminish UNZ.com would be a big mistake.

  318. Ron Unz says:
    @Muse

    I would suggest what happened to Professor Eric Ferguson at IU constitutes serious trouble…For my family, we would lose clients, income and put my children’s welfare at risk if I were doxxed like Rasmussen, so I keep my mouth shut….Another prime example was the attack of the social justice warriors on Gibson’s Bakery when they detained and called police to arrest a black shoplifter.

    Well, Prof. Rasmussen tweeted out under his own name our article entitled “Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably.” Some feminist-activist happened to see it, became outraged and organized a lynch-mob to attack him.

    https://www.unz.com/article/women-in-universities-ius-provost-lauren-robel-dean-idie-kesner-show-why-women-in-universities-are-not-a-good-thing/

    That’s exactly the sort of example I was listing, and nothing at all like posting some comment somewhere under a pseudonym. Neither is a bakery calling the police about some black shoplifters.

    Maybe there’s been some case somewhere in America of a non-prominent person getting into trouble for leaving furtive comments on a website, but nothing comes to mind. Maybe you can find one.

    • Replies: @AnonAnon
  319. Ron Unz says:
    @Brás Cubas

    You could claim a percentage of each commenter’ revenue to yourself. After all, they are using your infrastructure to make a buck.

    Too complicated. Since lots of the commenters are paranoid, they’d all want to use different payment methods to receive donations—Patreon, SubscribeStar, Bitcoin, whatever. Basically, they’d be able to keep whatever anyone gave them, which probably would be much less than they’d hope for.

    • Agree: Brás Cubas
  320. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Liza

    And to be brutally honest, in general the comments here are a hell of a lot better and more interesting than the articles. Most of the articles are puerile or they’re simply rants.

    Well, for heaven’s sake, there wouldn’t be any comments if there weren’t articles (bad or not) to comment on.

    The only thing most of the articles are good for is to stimulate discussion. Even incoherent rubbish or the blatherings of tired old hacks can stimulate interesting discussions.

  321. Ron Unz says:

    I’ve mentioned it before, but I think I’ll repeat why it’s pretty easy to spot “suspicious characters” on this website…

    Suppose there’s some fellow who’s a zealous conspiracy-activist and has all sorts of extremely unconventional ideas about things, views that would probably get him banned almost anywhere else.

    Is it plausible that he would have left 700,000 words of comments on this website, sometimes at a rate of 200-250 comments per month? Absolutely!

    But suppose there’s a fellow with relatively mainstream views like “PeterAUS,” who frequently debunks “conspiracy theories.” It’s hard for me to understand why he would spend such an enormous amount of time hanging around this website and publishing 700,000 words of (often very long-winded) comments unless someone was paying him to do so…

  322. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    PeterAUS regularly writes comments hinting at violent “direct action”.
    Of course he might be a paid agent provocateur trying to get other readers to write down violent fantasies of their own (though I don’t think so). But his views are definitely not just “relatively mainstream”.
    Anyway, your comment sounds like you only want total nutters to write long comments…if you think “normal” people wouldn’t be interested in commenting here anyway, what’s the point of the comments section?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Colin Wright
  323. peterAUS says:
    @Ron Unz

    It’s hard for me to understand why he would spend such an enormous amount of time hanging around this website and publishing 700,000 words of (often very long-winded) comments unless someone was paying him to do so…

    A perceptive person would’ve seen and understood it ages ago. Coders can’t, of course.
    It’s O.K.

    And, if the coder is a rich American that helps too. Not understanding I mean.
    So, I’ll try again to broaden your horizons a bit re “deplorables”:

    In my waking time, I have to be very careful with what I say/write down. That takes a toll on some people. A balance is required. A place where I can, OK up to a point of course, say what I REALLY think about some things. Call it “online therapy”.

    See, you and me now. You are what you are, somebody. I am who I am in this little paradigm, nobody. And I CAN say what I really think about you directly to you.
    Now…………hahahah…I mean….what do YOU think would happen to me if I said what I REALLY think to a CEO I work for? Or to a client delivering a short project too?

    Don’t get me wrong; I did try to do that, twice actually, in my civilian career (yes, so I say). How to put it politely….ah, yes….didn’t reflect well on my employment there. Reflected perfectly in the very next restructure/outsourcing.
    As for clients….just funny…….just last month I lost one because I really couldn’t go over some technical line in the sand. Told them what they have to do to make it work. Yes, I do 90 % but there is really something I can’t and they just must. What an insolence, a?

    So, say, I have to compose a business-related email to an idiot. Taxing.
    Then I pop here and read something. Even post. Refresh. Recharge. Back to paradise.

    See, as soon as I finish this I have to make a phone call to….an idiot. And be very careful, nice etc.
    So..hehe…I’ll pop up here, later on, I guess.

    Same for almost all people I interact with, each and every day, in my multicultural urban paradise. Call it “careful interaction”. That’s for work/making money.

    Same for life in general.

    I mean, neighbors etc. Contractors fixing things here and there. Fellas in gym. Life in suburbia.
    Can’t skip over them/ignore them. Have to play the game.
    Here I just use that list up here and off they go…… in limbo. Rejuvenating.

    Makes sense?

    It’s probably hard to understand, for a rich Jewish American, coder on top of it, all that.
    But…hahaha….that’s the point, isn’t it?

    Now, that’s for most of it.
    Also, there have been some little nuggets of exquisite knowledge/information and even wisdom here. Rare, but it’s happened.

    And, there was a time here when I had some ideas about ….anyway….and took some time and effort, posting too, to see the reality.
    See, in hindsight, I wouldn’t have written a fifth of what I have, let alone read stuff here. But, that’s the price one has to pay to see this pub for what is really for/about.

    All good.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  324. Anon[398] • Disclaimer says:

    Charge $1 for every instance of using the word “Jew”…

    You racist redneck hillbillies will end up belly up in 2 weeks.

  325. IMO its difficult to keep track of the hours individuals spend on your site. Same for individuals who comment. You’d have to hire a brigade of people to do so. Why not just charge a $5.00 or $10.00 flat fee. This would make more sense and keep things to an attainable level.

  326. I’m assuming most of the big users are also big commentators. After all, you don’t rack up 500 page/month views just reading the articles. In which case, I’m all for some kind of Troll Toll.

    Most people who post 100 Comments a month or more, add little value. Most are cranks. Its just background noise. And some of them just post pictures or You-tube videos. Or chat with their friends.

    You see the same type on other websites. Any comment section that wants intelligent discussion needs to to be vigorously policed otherwise it becomes a worthless troll garden.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @FKA Max
  327. jon says:
    @Jim Sweeney

    This seems like the best option to me, too.

  328. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Honesthughgrant

    In which case, I’m all for some kind of Troll Toll.

    There are plenty of users who write 100 comments a month and aren’t trolls, but produce substantial content worth reading.
    No offense, but your sycophantic attitude sickens me (as does that of the other consumer sheep who are apparently enthusiastic about paying, no wonder America is such a plutocracy).

  329. @Ron Unz

    Ron I am so confused what is it you want ? What commentators to you view as being valuable contributors? Do you just want nutters on this site?

  330. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Honesthughgrant

    Most people who post 100 Comments a month or more, add little value. Most are cranks. Its just background noise. And some of them just post pictures or You-tube videos.

    100 comments per month is actually not that many when one considers that the Unz Review features two new articles daily.

    One comment per featured article a month is already 60 comments, then add another 40 comments per month on Unz Review bloggers’ posts and one easily reaches 100 comments, without even remotely being a pest.

    Also sharing/commenting with relevant/on-topic YouTube/BitChute video links on an article/post is reasonable and valuable behavior, imho, particularly in these times of de-platforming and censorship.

    Also, quite a few of my comments in the past were regarding bugs on the website I discovered. Should I be charged or really be paid for those comments, since I’m adding value by helping the website to run more smoothly, etc.?

    —-

    This is the best and simplest solution: https://www.unz.com/announcement/monthly-fees-for-heavy-users/#comment-3597853

    Charge $1 per comment over 100 comments per month per user (including ANONs).

    —-

    Previously, commenters were encouraged “to gradually develop a “reputation,” which they would put at risk by ignorant or unfair comments” https://www.unz.com/masthead/#comments-policy

    How can one build or maintain a “reputation”, without being charged, on less than 100 comments per month?

    Particularly, new, not-yet-established commenters are at a huge disadvantage in this regard, if Mr. Unz were to go ahead with his idea of only allowing 10 free comments per month: https://www.unz.com/announcement/monthly-fees-for-heavy-users/#comment-3597787

  331. peterAUS says:
    @anon

    PeterAUS regularly writes comments hinting at violent “direct action”.

    That’s one way to look at it.

    Another is: PeterAUS regularly writes comments hinting at secession and the creation of White ethnostate.
    Say, something like Israel, just for Western Whites.

    Now, if that can be done by blogging online I am all for it.
    Or voting. Or phoning/mailing your elected representatives.
    Even by (massive) protests/demonstrations.

    I just don’t think it will be enough.

    Anyway…hehe..I won’t be even hinting at it anymore here, rather soon, I guess.

  332. utu says:

    Remoras think they power the shark
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/12/remoras-think-they-power-shark.html

    “Ron Unz, quite rightly, has broached the idea of offering subscriptions to the Unz Review and tying it to the amount of comments a user is able to make.”

    • Replies: @res
  333. @Ron Unz

    ‘… I’ve mentioned it before, but I think I’ll repeat why it’s pretty easy to spot “suspicious characters” on this website…’

    Yeah, but you decided I was some kind of closet hasbarist or something, so that tells me you may be a little too good at spotting suspicious characters on this website.

    Of course, from your point of view telling you this won’t do anything to persuade you of the error of your ways — but from my point of view, if your theories about me are unfounded, perhaps the ones you’re entertaining about PeterAUS are as well.

  334. @anon

    ‘PeterAUS regularly writes comments hinting at…’

    That’s probably one of the few things you could post about someone here that could conceivably cause them real problems.

    If that’s actually your intention…well, it’d be a shame if you’re just doing it inadvertently.

  335. Alfred says:

    What if the total donated to this site in the past 12 months were posted adjacent to the commenter’s comment?

    BTW, the dictionary does not like “commenter”. It accepts “commentator”.

  336. @Baltimore resident

    The NSA shares raw captured data with Israel with no oversight. It is there sold to the highest (Jewish) bidder. I don’t know how anyone seriously expects anonymity online anymore.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  337. @Ron Unz

    …and they all come out of the woodwork.

    Charge for comments. It’s the obvious solution.

  338. AnonAnon says:
    @Ron Unz

    Maybe there’s been some case somewhere in America of a non-prominent person getting into trouble for leaving furtive comments on a website, but nothing comes to mind. Maybe you can find one.

    Examples I can think of have mostly come from Reddit/Twitter-

    Ken Bone, the red sweater guy from the Clinton/Trump debates – his was more of an own-goal since fame got to his head and he did an AMA on Reddit under his normal user handle and people were offended by his sketchy comment history.

    The guy who made the CNN-Trump wrestling gif that PO’d CNN so bad they doxxed him and he had to beg forgiveness so his life wouldn’t get ruined.

    Elon Musk went after an anonymous twitter critic (he’s gone after more than one) called Montana Skeptic where he called his boss and threatened to sue him over his comments. https://jalopnik.com/get-a-load-of-this-ridiculous-story-about-how-elon-musk-1827842961

  339. @peterAUS

    I’d say you made everyone’s point.

  340. Hey Ron!

    The Preview button is dead now. Also, a comment doesn’t go on a clock, it goes straight down the Vole-Hole for moderation. Recent flaw or feature?

    You know voles, right? Those cute little guys, they’re like our comments and we better edit them well and truly before we send them on or the sender can look like Jethro with bad grammar, syntax and punctuation. Oh! We have that already. Well, I’d bet we here are the last generation to believe that spelling and grammar COUNTS. Anyway, The vole. At his hole:

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  341. @Colin Wright

    Colin, just because they ain’t out to get you, that doesn’t mean they won’t. 😉

  342. @Ron Unz

    Offhand, I can’t think of a single case in the U.S. in which simple online comments by an ordinary person (i.e. not an elected official or prominent public figure) have led to serious negative consequences. But maybe others here can point to some examples.

    How about this Jewish doctor working at a New York hospital who got doxed for posting anonymously on counter-currents.com?

    https://forward.com/news/national/406452/is-this-jewish-doctor-secretly-a-white-nationalist/

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/07/dov-bechhofer-did-nothing-wrong/

  343. Ron Unz says:

    Yeah, but you decided I was some kind of closet hasbarist or something, so that tells me you may be a little too good at spotting suspicious characters on this website.

    Well, I don’t recall more than a couple of my comments many months ago suggesting that I was somewhat suspicious of your pattern of views. And I’m *still* somewhat suspicious, so nothing has really changed.

    Over the last 18 months, you’re written well over 500,000 words of comments, which is probably more than just about anyone else, and you easily broke 500 comments last month. Offhand, it looks like you spend something like 100 hours on this website each month.

    Those are huge numbers. But I think you’ve said you’re a retired home mover and you’re very harshly critical of Israel and Zionism, so maybe you just have plenty of free time and have been drawn to this website because it allows the sort of criticism banned elsewhere.

    My suspicions arose when you regularly became one of the most energetic critics of nearly all “conspiracy theories,” especially those presented in most of my American Pravda articles, which I think you also criticized as almost unreadable. Moreover, some of your arguments seemed rather odd to me. Perhaps you’re right and I’m wrong, but taking that position seems rather unexpected given your other views and (apparently) your very extensive reading in history.

    By way of comparison, a couple of months ago a very eminent mainstream political scientist mentioned that he reads all my articles “religiously” and just yesterday another eminent mainstream academic told me that he “loves” my American Pravda articles. Your very strong hostility toward the same material raises questions.

    It’s well-known that when “shills” are sent to a particular website, they work to gain trust and blend in. I’d assume that AIPAC agents sent to right-wing websites endlessly denounce blacks and immigrants to gain credibility with the other commenters before they start defending Israel.

    Similarly, becoming a leading critic of Israel and Zionism on this website would win the respect of many other commenters here, thereby lending much more weight to your attacks on “conspiracy theories” including 9/11, JFK, and WWII.

    I’m absolutely not saying it’s likely that you’re a “shill,” just that there are some doubts about your unusual pattern of views.

    I wouldn’t have even mentioned these facts except that you just now criticized me for having long ago raised some suspicions in one or two comments.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Fran Taubman
  344. iffen says:
    @Ron Unz

    Like these mo-runs are a match for a man with clairvoyant super powers.

  345. Hello, my name is Hippopotamusdrome, and I am a heavy unz user…

  346. anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    just go the yearly subscription route for ad-free access like Russia Insider. Maybe charge $30/year, $10/quarter etc.

    for the paranoid, they can buy (non-reloadable) VISA or MC gift cards and subscribe anonymously with names like “Joe Smith”

  347. res says:
    @utu

    Some interesting ideas in that post and comments. Permuting comment 36 (two sided auction) a bit, how about having readers able to pay both to comment themselves and to encourage (or prevent) others to comment? So a poor commenter (say TD) would have to be willing to pay more than others are willing to pay to have him go away in order to keep commenting (and the site gets the money from both sides of that arms race). While a good commenter (and obviously both good and poor definitions will vary drastically depending on the observer) might get paid for commenting.

    P.S. Ron, I am assuming I am one of your high usage commenters, but would be interested in knowing just how much so. Not only do I make a high volume of comments, I assume my habits of following up on ongoing conversations and extensive use of search to find relevant older posts and comments send my monthly page views into the stratosphere. Would it be worth making an estimate of resource usage by individuals (maybe coarse bins?) public? This would let everyone get a feel for whether they think various high usage individuals are being a net benefit or drain on the site. And might help focus the conversation in this thread a bit (though I am not sure that would be a good thing).

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  348. @Ron Unz

    You biggest conspiracy theory which I can easily debunk is that there are paid shills on this website.
    There are no paid commentators. The ADL does not pay people. What is going on with the paid commentators is for mainstream websites like FB. “social” media.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @joe2.5
  349. Ron Unz says:
    @Fran Taubman

    You biggest conspiracy theory which I can easily debunk is that there are paid shills on this website.
    There are no paid commentators. The ADL does not pay people.

    Well, I’d certainly never accuse you of being a paid shill. You seem exactly like the sort of agitated individual who would spend enormous amounts of time and energy commenting on this website for your own sincere reasons.

    However, I strongly suspect that some of the other very heavy commenters here may fall into a different category…

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  350. Ron Unz says:
    @res

    P.S. Ron, I am assuming I am one of your high usage commenters, but would be interested in knowing just how much so. Not only do I make a high volume of comments, I assume my habits of following up on ongoing conversations and extensive use of search to find relevant older posts and comments send my monthly page views into the stratosphere.

    Well, just as you say, you’re certainly a heavy user of the website, which is obvious given your large number of very long and detailed comments, which totaled around 40,000 words in both Sept. and Oct. But you’re actually far, far below many others. My rough estimate is that you’ve recently been spending something like 60-80 hours per month here.

    That’s exactly why some of those others make me quite “suspicious”…

    • Replies: @res
  351. joe2.5 says:
    @Ron Unz

    ron unz @296

    It may be correct that only people already in the public eye are publicly shamed (although there are many cases of hitherto obscure individuals suddenly getting in trouble for an unguarded word; the dozens of students rendered unemployable for life by Canary Mission doxing springs to mind immediately.)

    The problem for the obscure or relatively unknown people, however, is not so much the risk of public shaming as the loss of their livelihood in silence as a result of pressure by specialized organizations like Canary Mission, with no word of the real reasons — as I was suggesting in my post (No.91.) There’s no point in shaming the relatively unknown, while starving them will be more effective.

    Be that as it may, the power of intimidation doesn’t relies not on reality but on the public’s fear, reinforced at intervals by a single case. If people are so careful about their identities it’s because they believe there is a real threat. Pooh-pooh doesn’t make it go away.

  352. joe2.5 says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Fran Taubman @355

    The ADL does not pay people

    Perhaps. But the Hasbara Foundation (NY), The “Israel” Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry for Diaspora and Propaganda, and some other Zionist entity organizations most certainly do. And these are only those wo admit it or have already been exposed.

    That has been known and widely published (and admitted) for years. Of course, this is the first you hear of it…

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  353. res says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thanks!

    My rough estimate is that you’ve recently been spending something like 60-80 hours per month here.

    My guess is that is high, but within a factor of 2. I suspect the “search and take a quick look” as well as “short throwaway responses to trolls” cases lead to short times per page view with the longer comments requiring research, thought, and analysis pushing the trend in the other direction. Not sure how your usage model reacts to “read/comment for 10 minutes then do something else for an hour.” That might explain some of the multi-tasking comments above.

    But you’re actually far, far below many others.

    That’s exactly why some of those others make me quite “suspicious”…

    That is stunning to me. Are you sure you are not overestimating time per page view for comments from various trolls? I think many of those comments would take little thought and time ; ).

    Any thoughts on whether some of the trolls might be bots?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  354. @joe2.5

    No it is not the first I have heard of it, but I know that it does not involve paid commentators on sites like UR and others with heavy intellectual content. It could not prepare such people, that kind of experience comes with a lot of study.
    What I have heard is that paid commentators or moderators are more observant then participants.
    Observing Jew hatred on the internet. Commentators are more light weight for FB and other strictly social situations for younger groups, involving group causes and straight out “hate pages”.
    Big big difference. No one is paid on this site.

  355. Ron Unz says:
    @res

    My guess is that is high, but within a factor of 2. I suspect the “search and take a quick look” as well as “short throwaway responses to trolls” cases lead to short times per page view with the longer comments requiring research, thought, and analysis pushing the trend in the other direction.

    Actually, I was taking into account the time you were spending writing 40,000 words of (highly-complex) comments in some months. That’s really the length of a short book, and must involve quite a lot of time beyond your readings articles and comment-threads. Still, the time-estimates are obviously just estimates.

    That is stunning to me. Are you sure you are not overestimating time per page view for comments from various trolls? I think many of those comments would take little thought and time ; ).

    I was also very surprised. But generating a couple of thousand pageviews and leaving e.g. 600 comments totaling maybe 50,000 words isn’t the sort of thing you can do in just 20-30 hours.

    Any thoughts on whether some of the trolls might be bots?

    I very much doubt it. About the only candidate who’s so repetitive and spammish to almost be bot-like would be that “Wally” character, and he obviously not. My guess is that some of these shills are paid by the comment and others are paid by the hour or maybe the word.

    • Replies: @res
  356. Ron Unz says:
    @Jim Christian

    The Preview button is dead now. Also, a comment doesn’t go on a clock, it goes straight down the Vole-Hole for moderation. Recent flaw or feature?

    That’s very odd, everything seems to be working fine on my end. Probably your cookies have gotten clogged up or something like that. I’ll bet if you test it on a different browser or device, it may work.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  357. iffen says:

    I don’t know why there is all this anquish over who is a troll and who’s not. There is a sub-tab under the agree/diagree tab where all trolls can be properly identified and labeled as such.

    • Agree: Fran Taubman
  358. mcohen says:
    @Ron Unz

    That is funny.I reported this website to aipac yet no action was taken.Deafening silence lol.Then i concluded that your website is useful for tracking naughty people,it acts like a honeypot and attracts all sorts and all free of charge.
    The internet address,all the data,the comments,the ideas,and now and then the useful nuggets of gold all go into a pot.
    Zerohedge has amazing numbers compared to unz

    If you control the flow of infomation in both directions,that is for and against, you can change facts on the ground quicker.Internet has speeded this up.
    I have found unz useful in promoting my own agenda so the distasteful stuff comes with the territory.
    Trust me ron,give people enough rope and they will climb the highest mountain.lol

  359. @Muse

    It’s not just about money or public service; but about Time. I used to have a website and would sit some days 16 hours (Didn’t bother me as I loved working on it). But it is time consuming, which can impact your financial situation. And his site’s database expands continually with all the articles, so I think he should monetize in some way.

    The way big Tech is taking over, people need to be constantly vigilant of legal issues as well…It’s enormous responsibility. There is much more to running a successful blog/website than many people realize.

    • Agree: Old Jew
  360. I’ve taken advantage of reading some of books up on this site. It seems to me posting the books is quite an undertaking. Reading them probably makes me a heavy user. I have no objections to paying for the privelege.

  361. res says:
    @Ron Unz

    Actually, I was taking into account the time you were spending writing 40,000 words of (highly-complex) comments in some months. That’s really the length of a short book, and must involve quite a lot of time beyond your readings articles and comment-threads. Still, the time-estimates are obviously just estimates.

    My comments being quote heavy (e.g. paper and book excerpts, as well as commenter back and forth) might help explain some of the discrepancy in time estimates using that metric.

    Thank you for your responses!

    P.S. BTW, if you have the time and an interest in African country IQ estimates I would be very interested in your opinion on this comment:
    https://www.unz.com/article/reply-to-lance-welton-why-do-blacks-outperform-whites-in-uk-schools/#comment-3600494
    I think that may show a serious methodological flaw with current average IQ estimates for low IQ countries, but would very much appreciate a second look from a pair of sharp eyes coupled with a keen mind. There is some more further down, but the thread as a whole is terribly noisy.

  362. Bad idea. Young readers (myself included) might not have the money for reading fees, and even if we did, we would be loathe to pay them. Any technologically literate readers would surely find a way around a paywall anyway.

    Unz merchandise, more and new comment reactions, etc would all be far better monetisation options.

  363. Durruti says:
    @peterAUS

    But, as for this initiative I do give you credit: good move. Timing in particular.
    And you know what: I, actually, think it’s not a bad move. Not joking. Yes, guys like me won’t be here anymore, but, that’s, maybe, not so bad, in a big scheme of things.

    Recalls the sad History -downward trajectory of the once popular Weekly – The Village Voice.

    Centered in NYCs Greenwich Village, From a crusading anti imperialist weekly, which occasionally expressed sympathy for the Palestinians, the Village Voice was purchased by the a Zionist Oligarch, and, most of its writers were Fired, and it descended into the dark world of Slavish support for the existing Power Structure. It pumped for Zionist Democrap candidates, as it forgot its past. Turned inside out, the VV lost readership, (as its articles became dull/boring/predictable/crap.

    There is a happy ending to this story, no longer profitable, (people just won’t pay to be bored), the VV passed away -peacefully- in its sleep, two years ago.

    Durruti: writing from the Front Lines of memory.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  364. Charging a monthly fee is akin to erecting a toll-both and will only serve to limit access to The Unz Review.

    Let monthly fees remain the modus operandi of a dying dinosaur known as the commercial mass media.

    Why not use a quarterly fund drive?

  365. peterAUS says:
    @Durruti

    Well….let’s put it this way:
    In order to enter, even in a minuscule capacity, the world of real, CURRENT, politics this pub needs…how to put it….consolidation.

    At the moment it’s a mess of people, often with diametrically opposite views, lots of them typing first things coming out of their minds. Add to that mess several kooks, trolls and, I am positive, disturbed types. Add then “annons” who can’t be….ahm….managed….with the current scheme and here we are.

    You can’t influence “normies” with such outfit.

    So, the cleanup is the first step.
    The next is organizing the regulars within certain parameters.
    Then, use that platform to attract more people (along certain parameters, of course).

    And, then, use the pub to influence the “normies”, in the real world. With certain timing.

    BTW, free speech and “educating/informing” people is overrated in Western democracies.
    It’s about belonging to groups and having the mental work done by the group leadership.

    I just don’t see the… reorganized….. pub pushing for White identity and ethnostate.
    Plenty of people, most definitely, will love the new look and feel.
    Freee will.

    • Agree: Fran Taubman
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @anon
  366. @Ron Unz

    That’s very odd, everything seems to be working fine on my end. Probably your cookies have gotten clogged up or something like that. I’ll bet if you test it on a different browser or device, it may work.

    Now I ask you, people. Where else do the top banana, who’s got to have better stuff to do, commune with and assist the little people? I trashed cookies for this site, maybe that reset will help. I’ve got ten years of cookies on this thing, over a GB according to Firefox only 12 total for unz, some going back to 2012″ Unz that old? I read for years before I ever posted. Hope it works.

    Thanks, Ron.

    Edited to add, yep. It worked, lets me edit on the clock again. Tx again!

  367. iffen says:
    @peterAUS

    In order to enter, even in a minuscule capacity, the world of real, CURRENT, politics this pub needs…how to put it….consolidation.

    He’s not interested in any of what you have written; he has other motivations.

    But who knows for sure. It’s not a fair game, he’s playing his hand close to his chest and we are just looking at the face up community cards. I know how that game ends.

    • Replies: @utu
  368. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    I just don’t see the… reorganized….. pub pushing for White identity and ethnostate.

    Unz review isn’t about white identity or an “ethnostate”, it’s primarily about Jews, Jewish influence in the US, antisemitism/anti-Zionism etc. The choice of authors and the heavy emphasis on Holocaust denial and similar issues makes it pretty clear imo that this is the primary focus of the site.
    The publishing of other nationalist material is incidental to that focus (also note that Ron Unz has in the past defended Hispanic mass immigration to the US and seems to be fine with the present state of California, so this site definitely isn’t about principled opposition to mass immigration).
    If you’re hoping that Unz review will become an effective platform for your goals, you’re bound to be disappointed.
    Maybe look up the identitarians, European new right etc. (don’t know though if something like that even exists in Australia), they might be closer to your concerns.

  369. Liza says:

    I’ll try again:

    Envelopes of cash. Like at an ethnic wedding, except we send our money to a Box no.

  370. peterAUS says:

    He’s not interested in any of what you have written; he has other motivations.

    Well…..I am trying to be positive here. To use seafaring analogy the, say, ship is about to drop me off in that port ahead; it’s been, overall, a good ride.

    Now, I did think, when got on board, that the final destination would be somewhere else and the voyage would produce something valuable for that, wrong, destination. In my defense, well, that was the only seaworthy ship in the port I was in at the time; the rest looked rather rotten, incompetent masters/captains, unruly crews…stuff like that.

    It would be simply bad form to hold any bad feelings towards the captain and his crew.

    I know how that game ends.

    Yep. Isn’t the first one I’ve been in.

    Let’s just get ready for the next one, a?

    • Replies: @iffen
  371. @TimeTraveller

    ‘I don’t know how anyone seriously expects anonymity online anymore.’

    No, of course not. But we can realize that insignificance has its points. No one’s going to bother.

    They haven’t yet, anyway.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  372. peterAUS says:
    @Colin Wright

    Let’s use real-life, home security, analogy here: who is after you?

    A druggie from a street wanting some cash for his next fix?
    Or….
    A team of “advisors” from Ft Bragg attached to the local FBI outfit?
    and anything in between.
    For the former, you just need a good lock, I guess. For the latter, well…….

    Same thing here, doxxing issue.
    A high school script kiddie wishing to impress his mates on a “hack forum”
    Or
    No Such Agency
    and anything in between.

    At the moment, a, say, “IT guy”, with a bit of effort and hassle, can protect his privacy from anyone save “Five Eyes” and similar outfits.

    With any online payment scheme, the threat gets much wider. Hehe….c’mon guys, of all people, don’t you really know who are the system and network engineers in those companies?! What outlook the management has re “globo-homo” paradise? Bizarre.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  373. Druid says:

    Unfortunately I don’t think you will get new people to your worthy and wonderful site by charging a fee!

  374. utu says:
    @iffen

    “I know how that game ends.”

    We all do. First all Jews will have to have a yellow star in their handle

    [MORE]

    and then they will be sent to Auschwitz.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  375. roo_ster says:
    @Anonymous

    I would be all over unz gear like a chihuahua on a pack of hot dogs. “Why NO, my shirt does not refer tot he pretzel guys, but an intersting web site…”

  376. I have been thinking about a Twitter where you purchase a number of likes at something like $1 for 100 likes or 1 cent per like. Then, when you like someone’s post, they can either reuse the like or else cash them in at a rate of say 500 likes for a dollar. Most people would just be paying 5 dollars a month for 500 likes, but some of the big names could be earning their living through it. The algorithms would need to be open of course.

    I also think a penny per email or dime per email system or email tax would make email function much better. Paying for an email service is not the issue, it’s just that anyone who emails me wants my time and they should be willing to pay a nickel for it.

    Anyway, I think pay for commenting, agrees, etc would be a good start for the website.

  377. @utu

    Then what the Holocaust is fake.

  378. Druid says:
    @Thomm

    You’re a hasbarist. See saggy’ skin comment no. 47. Your subscription money’s will come from Tel Aviv

  379. Wally says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    LOL

    I rather enjoy your obsession with me.

    IOW, I own you.

  380. @Ron Unz

    I do not consider myself a heavy user? But I would like to bring up my confusion concerning what you expect of the comments on your site. Especially since you are considering income from commentators. What is it you want to see in the comments?

    You put down those who comment against the articles conclusion, which is all Jews all the time as the main villains of the planet. The arguments we present are worth consideration, they are well thought, well written and interesting.
    Do you not want our point of view represented, as you appear to mock and not take us seriously?

    Many of the Jews as villains are Neo Nazi’s or as they say National Socialist or WN. Are they the charisma juice of your site? For me the attraction is the articles, the writing and the conclusions. The combination of blame Jews for their own misfortunes, (while shocking ) is fascinating for the combination of the clarity, conciseness combined with a shocking conclusion. Most of the commentators are nut jobs. Yet you want to charge them in a pay to play.

    What is your goal regarding commenters? A yes group or a back and forth argument? If commentators pay will they still be able to get kicked off sites like PG who regularly kicks people off his pages.

    The Jews as straw man argument can be seen clearly in Gilad Atzmon’s theory that the Jewish complaints of anti-semitism is the reason that Labour will lose. The only reason. Zionist control Britain which is also the theory of The Wondering Who A narcissist trying to tie his theory to election results. More to the point Labour or similar progressives of every country in the world where there are no claims of anti semitism are also losing elections. The Jewish argument is a straw man, people are rejecting progressive politics from the far right and nationalist, to religious conservatives against secular globalist. It is a global phenomenon. And he looks silly when Gilad tries to tie his Jew only theory around the world especially here in the US.

    Interesting stuff no?

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @RadicalCenter
  381. @Mutthead52

    Amazing site, as evinced by the insane amount of time I spend here. (I do find it creepy and unnecessary for Unz to track individual users’ time here, though.). I’m busy enough to have almost zero time left for internet besides this site. The only way I find this much time for Unz.com is that I have no commute to speak of, and we don’t have tv — two things that consume many hours of most Americans’ time each week.

    Anyway, it’s easy for people to talk about how others are so rich that they should just be generous and not ask “regular people” for money, even for a unique and welcome site like this. It’s always easier to call for spending someone else’s money.

    But at the risk of being banned or getting a snarky response from management, I’ll do just that in this unusual situation.

    When someone reaches the vast level of wealth that Unz has, it becomes hard to relate to or respect them looking for yet more money, from people with a tiny fraction of their wealth or income, for something they say they deeply care about as a matter of principle. I like how he tries to flip it around and say, “if people are spending south of their valuable time here, they should be willing to pony up.”

    Well, conversely, if the principles underlying the creation of this site, and its open article and comment policies, are so important to the owner, and he has more money than any family could ever need or even rightly deserve for generations on end, just do a an unqualified good deed and stop tying to rationalize charging or shaming us into paying.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  382. gman says:

    Is Unz Review a 501c-3 where I can use donor-advised funds?

  383. @Ron Unz

    I thought my three bucks per month on patreon would put you over the top, man, rest easy 😉

  384. @Ron Unz

    If someone has hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s rather untoward and tawdry to shame people who have a tiny fraction of that to “pay for the privilege” of reading, learning, arguing, and participating in what has been till now an admirable and generous endeavor.

    Not everything in my family’s life is about money and we are not interested in always “getting something tangible back for what we do for others”, and our household income is a rounding error in your world.

  385. @peterAUS

    There’s always the concern that one day some totalitarian globalist government may subpoena all non-MSM sites and publish watch lists of all who congregated there. Or could happen even earlier.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Colin Wright
  386. iffen says:
    @Fran Taubman

    What is it you want to see in the comments?

    Jews are in the saddle and ride mankind.

  387. Ron Unz says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Amazing site, as evinced by the insane amount of time I spend here…. When someone reaches the vast level of wealth that Unz has, it becomes hard to relate to or respect them looking for yet more money, from people with a tiny fraction of their wealth or income

    Well, Rupert Murdoch is worth $20B, Jeff Bezos is worth $100B, and that guy in LA is worth 7B. So why do the WSJ, the WashPost, and the LA Times charge subscription fees? And frankly, I only have a tiny sliver of the wealth of those particular individuals, probably far less than you seem to strangely believe.

    If you say you spend such an “insane amount of time” on this website, why shouldn’t you pay something for it? Don’t you pay for most things you want or use? Haven’t you ever paid for magazine or newspaper subscriptions?

    Charging people to read articles on this website would detract from its broader mission, but charging a modest fee for leaving comments seems like an excellent idea, especially since it would probably reduce the very large number of low-quality comments, thereby uncluttering many of the threads. Maybe some of the total cranks and crackpots would depart.

    Incidentally, although you’re a reasonably heavy user of the website, there are actually quite a few people who seem to spend 5-10x as much time here as you do and visit 5-10x as many pages. Those are the sorts of figures that really shocked me when I discovered them a few weeks ago.

    I assume that quite a few are just paid trolls, whose job it is to clutter up this website with their nonsense and thereby make it less useful to sincere individuals such as yourself. So charging them a very hefty fee may drive them away, and therefore should be beneficial to users like you.

  388. Anon[460] • Disclaimer says:

    LOL

    Nobody’s gonna pay a monthly fee for the site.

    Sailer accounts for most of the traffic and is the only guy who posts daily. Maybe you should be discussing this with him.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  389. iffen says:
    @peterAUS

    It would be simply bad form to hold any bad feelings towards the captain and his crew.

    Yes, we shouldn’t be upset with the captain just because “we” misidentified the destination.

    A moderator “reads” these comments and approves the posting. If his goal is uncluttering the comment threads (the CTI works just fine for me) he could have a moderator CTI. Hide the comment with a redbox frame and anyone interested could click and read the comment, just like you can click and read individual comments made by commenters on one’s personal CTI list. However, that seems to be a minor point or goal and I don’t think that we will see anything like that. He seems to want to “get at” his adversaries, real and imagined, and make (((them))) pay. Apparently it is insufficient to just publish tons of anti-Semitic material, he wants actually money to prove his point. By tying some of “us” to “them,” it makes sense in his mind that he can make “them” pay. You know about war, right? We are just “innocent bystanders.”

    As to the general question of subscription or paywall, crusader or advocacy journalism is its own reward. However, since the collapse of professional journalism and the economic structure upon which it was based, I would not want to be the one to defend against the argument that WSJ, NYT, etc. are crusaders as well.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  390. JackOH says:
    @Ron Unz

    FWIW-for a writer, income derived from opinion writing can mean affirmation, legitimation, a psychic boost, call it what you will. Back when I was doing local opinionizing, anger carried me so far, but at some point I wanted the legitimacy that comes with money and institutional support. I had no chance at institutional support, so I packed it in.

    I think that ties in a little with your position as a publisher.

    I don’t have much of a clue about the economics/behavioral consequences of subscriptions, fees, basic vs. premium services, and so on. I’m dialing back my reading and commenting here, so I don’t how I’d respond to a paywall, per comment charge, etc.

    A merch shop, which others have mentioned also, would be worthwhile. Lapel pins, baseball caps, and tees. Charge a fundraiser’s price of $15 per. I don’t know what minimum order quantities would be, but I’ll take a wild gues $2000 or less would get you a selection.

  391. @Ron Unz

    Well, you’re right about that last part for sure. Deterring the few people who seem unwilling or unable to contribute somewhat rationally is a worthwhile goal.

    You’re also right that I have paid for magazine and newspaper subscriptions, and those outlets are now often owned by pricks like bezos, who have even more money than you, who manipulate us by restricting the information and viewpoints we see rather than fostering free inquiry and debate as you’ve been doing.

    So in a sense, some of us are complaining at you for doing, at least for a while, what those other wealthy people have never done for us. You’re thinking, “that’s a funny way of showing gratitude.” Well, I am grateful to you, Ron, just a cantankerous SOB (as the secret commenting guidelines require 😉 and frankly stressed by our own financial struggle.

    Just don’t have anything to do with Google or its ilk, and don’t overestimate the resources available to many of us. You know what I do for a living, if I recall, from a brief email i sent you when you were exasperated with me over some comments, and I earn a good salary.

    But, for example, we have many children and are having a surprisingly hard time getting by in Los Angeles. Neither the high cost of living in L.A., Nor our decision to try to raise an Amish-sized family in such a costly place, nor the medical problems that have slowed our financial progress, are your fault, of course; I’m just explaining. Our situation is gradually improving as we pay off debt, and this website would indeed be one of the outlets we’d like to support more as it does — if the site is truly independent. Thanks for taking the time and effort to run the site and to converse with me here.

  392. Most people leave tips whenever they eat out. I suggest a “Tip Jar”. A post office box where people can mail envelopes stuffed with cash. Or money orders (no checks). Providing anonymity, of course.

    The mailing address should be obvious on the site, and those who wish to contribute could do so. This would provide a real “money where your mouth is” measure of the effectiveness of the site.

    Anyone who wishes to remain anonoymous should be careful when preparing their contributions. Cash only, preferably. Handle any and all paper, including bills, with gloves to avoid fingerprint contamination. No licking of stamps or envelopes. (The powers that be can analyze DNA from saliva). Mail only from large Post Offices, etc. And no, this is not paranoid. Ask Vicki Weaver.

    Mr. Unz should mail random envelopes, occasionally, to the address to keep a check that Post Office employees are not stealing his donations. Remember that many newer government employees are lacking in the cardinal virtues. Through no fault of their own, of course. Many suffer from serious brainwashing.

    Just a suggestion.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  393. @Fran Taubman

    “Most” commenters, Fran, do not seem like nut jobs, although admittedly more than a few do. Or is that because I’m one too? LOL.

    Seriously, even some commenters who are critical of the dominant Jewish influence in our western societies (plural) are not idiots. We can discern that there are good, bad, and in between in any large racial, ethnic, or political grouping.

    We just are not naive about what we perceive to be long-standing and systematic patterns of behavior by sufficiently large proportions of certain groups — groups that are acting affirmatively against the rights and interests of my family and nation, and denying that they’re doing any such thing.

    On a light note, I get flak from an old friend (born in US but parents from Asia) because I always seem to make friends with someone Jewish in each of the numerous cities where I have lived. They are typically non-lefty, non-multicultural Jews who do have real affection for America and its core european-heritage people. That is not something that I’m quick to believe given my miserable experience in the workplace and elsewhere with a much larger number of their coreligionists.

    Groomsmen at our wedding included a black guy (apolitical, military veteran, and actually still loves me despite knowing my experiences with his brethren and my true feelings in reaction, and I know his negative experiences at the hands of white people who didn’t give him a fair chance and his bitterness as a result). He is the only black American I’ve ever been able to be completely candid with and still be close friends, and I serve the same purpose for him among us aryans. Groomsmen also included a Slavic catholic friend who eventually told me he is part Jewish and was afraid to tell me for obvious reasons (ya think?), and a conservative Asian guy.

    As we’re all lined up in our tuxes for photos, my Asian buddy says, “dude, you are really bad at being a racist. They’re gonna take away your hood.” I can’t top that 😉

    Just thought a little lighthearted self-deprecation was in order. Please understand that some of us who draw harsh generalizations about Jews didn’t WANT to draw those conclusions and wish that things were otherwise.

    A large part of that is up to Jewish Americans themselves, though. Like all of us, think about how you’re coming across, and consider how someone who’s not a foaming-at-the-mouth unintelligent type could reasonably draw the conclusions that we have after seeing the vastly disproportionate Jewish role in destructive and repulsive social and legal developments.

    We have been fooled and so badly burned by vicious amoral Jews, in personal and professional life and collectively, that it feels like schmuckery to say “well, some of them are just like us and have our same basic values and interests at heart.” Yet I still end up saying just that about select special individuals.

    My Jewish bud in L.A. thinks that God keeps putting decent Jews into my life so that I don’t go totally off the rails and just hate without discriminating between good and bad. There may be something to that.

    And, although we don’t often talk about it and the conversation can be awkward, he even admits that some of his coethnics are actively manipulating and destroying our culture and opinions. Referring to the Jews who dominate Hollywood, which is near where we both live, he says, “I don’t claim them, they are an embarrassment to me. I’m a proud Jew but a grateful loyal American.” And he is.

    Thanks, Ron, for allowing this OT comment to my sparring partner Fran.

    Am I proving Ron’s point by having an exchange with Fran that we’d never have at other sites? Dang it.

  394. Rob McX says:

    The trolls will always be with us. If you start charging for commenting above a certain number of comments, they can adopt several usernames to stay below the threshold. I assume it’s not too hard to change or disguise your IP address these days. Anyway, most people use more than one device.

    Overall, I find the quality of comments very high, and the trolls are easy to spot and ignore.

  395. @Anon

    Since some people are paying a small monthly fee already on patreon, that’s not quite true. In the short term, Unz is looking for hundreds more of the active readers and especially commenters to chip in.

  396. peterAUS says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Well, I can think of a couple of scenarios where your and my name get published in our local media.

    Here is one:
    Your and my outfits, you know, your starting with “G” and mine with “A”, working together, of course, with the biggest, starting with “N”, know, as we speak, who we are. The fact.

    Now…..that information, if useful in certain internal politicking, can be, with ease, “leaked” to the local media.
    Say, the relevant data are within the “outfits”.

    With any online payment scheme, it’s not necessary anymore. The “leak” can be done much easier. More importantly, a “hack” can be done with ease.
    The relevant data are NOT anymore only within the “outfits”.

    Just look at this as an example:
    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/software-giant-sap-apologises-to-new-zealand-as-details-of-gun-buyback-data-breach-unfold.html
    “Software giant SAP”, a?

    Hehe…so, who’s going to apologize when….anyway.

    Whoever does not understand this, well, good.

  397. Ron Unz says:
    @HallParvey

    A post office box where people can mail envelopes stuffed with cash. Or money orders (no checks). Providing anonymity, of course.

    The mailing address should be obvious on the site, and those who wish to contribute could do so. This would provide a real “money where your mouth is” measure of the effectiveness of the site.

    Anyone who wishes to remain anonoymous should be careful when preparing their contributions. Cash only, preferably. Handle any and all paper, including bills, with gloves to avoid fingerprint contamination.

    Well, since some of the commenters here are extremely paranoid, I have a simple question…

    Isn’t it pretty easy to buy a “disposable credit card,” maybe even using cash at some grocery store. And can’t such a CC be used to make payments online with almost perfect anonymity, or at least as much anonymity as you can get with lots of other things, including your current commenting on this website?

  398. peterAUS says:
    @iffen

    Yes, we shouldn’t be upset with the captain just because “we” misidentified the destination.

    That’s the spirit.
    We’ll find another ship. Or a boat. Raft, even.

    He seems to want to “get at” his adversaries, real and imagined, and make (((them))) pay. Apparently it is insufficient to just publish tons of anti-Semitic material, he wants actually money to prove his point. By tying some of “us” to “them,” it makes sense in his mind that he can make “them” pay. You know about war, right? We are just “innocent bystanders.”

    Good point.

  399. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    “it’s only fair that they start contributing.”

    They are contributing.
    Content.
    In fact, the people who visit the site and do not comment should be the ones to be charged!
    Many people come here for the comments.
    As Ron points out, many articles are unique to UR, but many can be read elsewhere.
    E.g., The Saker blog; Strategic-Culture; MintPress; and others.
    For example, Phil Giraldi can be read at a number of blogs.
    But at most of them there is no comment function. So when I see a PG article that I have already read at Strategic-Culture.org, I take a look at the comments here and if I have something to say I am glad to have an opportunity to say it.
    By drawing readers to the site, commenters are actually adding a lot of the value—the actual content.
    As you yourself point out.
    So, how about UR’s paying those commenters who add value/unpaid content to the site?? (;-))

    I have a college education, but that doesn’t mean I have a lot of $$ to spare.
    I struggle along with my SS and small IRA and am still working.
    I do make a contribution to blogs that I read regularly that I know are struggling, when they have a fundraiser. That is a matter of ethics for me. For example, I am a longtime user of ICH and it bothers me that Tom Feeley is struggling, has health issues, etc., yet states that only a few hundred of the thousands of users actually contribute. I would be embarrassed, frankly, to continue using the site and not kick in something. Same goes for Consortium News, which IMO originates very important investigative journalism and does not have a sugar daddy or mommy (that I know of).

    However, the idea of charging users by the hour is a real turn-off.
    In fact, I agree that this whole Google analytics thing is more than a bit creepy.
    If that is to be the way things are going forward, I would forgo using this site.
    I also would look more favorably on a straight-out fundraiser.
    I would be more inclined to contribute if the money were to be put to some particular investigative fund or other designated use.

    Do you/the site really need the money?
    If so, why not publish some figures and set a fundraising/income goal?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Biff
  400. jb says:

    Whatever you decide to do with fees, I think it’s kind of interesting that Google was willing to get into bed with you!

    Also, I agree that your commenting system is excellent. It’s definitely the best I’ve come across, and that includes major sites like the New York Times. Have you considered trying to monetize it by licensing it to other sites?

  401. peterAUS says:
    @Skeptikal

    They are contributing.
    Content.
    In fact, the people who visit the site and do not comment should be the ones to be charged!
    Many people come here for the comments.

    I take a look at the comments here and if I have something to say I am glad to have an opportunity to say it.
    By drawing readers to the site, commenters are actually adding a lot of the value—the actual content.

    Yep.

    So, how about UR’s paying those commenters who add value/unpaid content to the site?? (;-))

    Not even that.
    How about UR simply not charging those people when accessing the site/posting comments?

    It’s funny that with this…ahm…”intent”…..people who actually add a lot of value here get penalized. Or……..perhaps….are, apparently, nudged to decrease the level of their online anonymity? Just saying….

    I would be more inclined to contribute if the money were to be put to some particular investigative fund or other designated use.

    Oh, yes.
    That “think tank” I’ve mentioned here, several times so far.
    Can’t wait……

  402. Tom says:

    I see your point, Ron, and I think your site is the best by far, of the political/cultural sites, .
    However, I cannot afford to pay as I am on a retirement budget.

  403. Art says:

    One reason for the volume of page views is the ease with which the software works. Unz.com is simple to navigate. Ron has created a program where it is very easy to follow different commenters on multiple articles at the same time. Between the browsers and Ron’s software it is easy to have many articles open at the same time monitoring comment activity. Refreshing an article and its comments is easy and fun.

    Face it – the comments on UNZ.com are a social phenomenon. The comment freedom that exists – gets to the rational truth of an article. UnZ.com is a very important truth outlet in America – indeed in the world. A cavalier statement. IMHO Ron Unz could do nothing better with his money then too continue the comment freedom process, as it is.

    If someone grossly abuses the process (no matter their viewpoint) they should be warned – then banned.

    If this is purely a matter of money – then advertising is the least disruptive to the comment freedom process.

  404. Skeptikal says:

    I appreciate that other outlets that I like to follow are linked to the UR site, such as the Jimmy Dore Show.

    I expect that the time watching linked videos and shows is logged by Google Analytics as time spent at UR.

    Very likely the time users spent on the site is part of the sales package that Google Analytics presents to advertisers and also structures the advertising fees that they pay.

    Including the time site users spend actually viewing other products that just happen to be linked by contributors, commenters, and Ron Unz himself.

    For example, in the case of the Jimmy Dore show, the URL is this:
    https://www.unz.com/video/channel/thejimmydoreshow/

    Can Google Analytics differentiate between time spent at the Jimmy Dore show and the time spent at a “real, local” Unz product?

    If so, I expect that Google Analytics has a way to make a different sales pitch to advertisers and to the websites where they intend to sell advertising (e.g., .UR). I am sure that Google Analytics has the digital chops to play both ends against the middle and come out the winner from both sides of the transaction. Like, say, also, Airbnb. That is the name of the game.

    There seems to be something circular about this . . .

    Or maybe, just, who’s zoomin’ who?

  405. Old Jew says:

    Only Jews shall pay!

    ….after all ((( Mr. Unz))) is paying already..

    … … and Israel Shamir plus Gilad Atzmon ought to pay for the privilege to publish here…..

  406. Thanks for that human response. I can relate. What I mean with the label nut jobs, are those crying for the misunderstood Hitler and National Socialist movement that claim that the Germans were abused by Jews, along with the deluded Wally who thinks Holocaust denial is a done deal. Proven, main stream without dispute. reader.

    Other commentators who are so steeped in conspiracy theories that they accuse Jews of causing cancer and are certain behind every dark corner is a dirty bot Jew ready to pounce in a pre programed response. Mind boggling to hear and observe. I bet it does attract readers like a freak show.

    But my real issue is how Ron views commentators, while boasting about the traffic and success of the RU. Is it all gratuitous adoration. Or real intellectual meat people are attracted to?

    It is curious for the WN on this site dealing with the fact that Ron and Gilad are progressives, Ron ran for a democratic office and Gilad is solidly a socialist labor guy who is bitter because he has all but been censured. Do the WN recognize their enemy or is just the Jews that promote homosexuality?

    If Ron wants to charge me a fee, he has to clearly state his goals, and set strict guidelines. Do the writers and Ron the UR to be a train wreck, a freak show of responses that devolves into hate speech about Jews, inching towards a repeat desire for the genocidal. Never to be repeated in the open with names attached to comments? Keep in mind PG was kicked off all main stream media and the NR for saying Jews appearing on TV should have a sub title attached that they are Jews like the warning on a bottle of rat poisoning. He is still pretty bitter and thin skinned craving mainstream acknowledgment while kicking legit responses off his site, but allowing nauseating hate speech by loonies.

    Does Ron want a freak show or a legitimate serious discussion with opposing viewpoints that he and the writers acknowledge are valid? If the latter he needs to come clean and stop labeling the opposition as trolls.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  407. Skeptikal says:
    @Old Jew

    I do hope they are getting paid something to contribute here.
    In fact, those two contributors are primary draws for me at this site.
    I recently responded to an appeal from Atzmon at his own site . . .

  408. notsaying says:

    I would be very sorry to lose this site. I come to read i-Steve daily and leave a handful of comments each week. When I do that, I will keep checking to see if anyone has responded. So I guess I end up being a heavier user of the site than I thought, but still I think less than an hour most days.

    But I cannot afford to pay for anything. I access this site at the library; I do not have a computer at home. The number of places that have a comments section has been shrinking, much to my dismay. This is one of the few places I can write about immigration — one of my big interests — and know I will have an interested audience that often sees the problems that I do with it.

    I see that a lot of people are willing to pay. I would urge you to take them up on that offer and not charge people, as such, for access without seeing first what you can get from volunteers. That system seems to work for Steve Sailer; he gets paid enough from volunteers to keep going without any other job as far as I know.

    I hope that whatever you do, you do not take this site away from me.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  409. @Commentator Mike

    ‘There’s always the concern that one day some totalitarian globalist government may subpoena all non-MSM sites and publish watch lists of all who congregated there. Or could happen even earlier.’

    As long as there’s enough of us, it would be meaningless — like outing everyone who’s ever picked their nose.

  410. @Fran Taubman

    Thanks for that human response. I can relate. What I mean with the label nut jobs, are those crying for the misunderstood Hitler and National Socialist movement that claim that the Germans were abused by Jews, along with the deluded Wally who thinks Holocaust denial is a done deal…’

    Then there are those who defend Israel…

    It never ends, huh?

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  411. @Old Jew

    ‘Only Jews shall pay!’

    I wonder if you could get Fran to pay to publish articles?

    You might be able to get her to pony up.

    AaronB probably doesn’t have any money, but Fran…

    • Replies: @iffen
  412. Truth3 says:

    Go ‘Total Capitalism’… Totaler Kapitalismus.

    For example…

    Put up for bids an ‘execution’ of an obvious Troll… say… the Aaron Bastard.

    Fix an amount (say, $100) and when that amount comes in from all commenters that want the Bastard fried, electrocute his comments… all of them.

    Franny the sock puppet bitch (Linda Rice, Anon) should be worth $300.

    Electrocuting Lot, utu, and others would pay off the hosting fees easy.

    Then, block their IP’s.

    If you think they are trolls (they are) you can do whatever you want.

    Plus… imagine the fun we would all have.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  413. Truth3 says:
    @Truth3

    Oh yeah, almost forgot.

    Asshole 123 should be worth $123.

    I’d chip in the first 1%… $1.23. Worth every penny.

  414. @Colin Wright

    We are not nut jobs and neither are the people who are anti Israel. If you cannot tell the difference between crazies and legit or do not understand my point. Well …..

    • Replies: @JamesinNM
    , @Colin Wright
  415. iffen says:
    @Old Jew

    Well, they do have all the money, right? 🙂

    He wants “the Jews” to pay for the publishing of a ton of anti-Semitic material.

    Dig your own graves.

    Jam-pack your own cattle cars with humans.

    Load your own ovens.

    He wants to force you to be Judenrats and Sonderkommando.

    • Replies: @Old Jew
  416. JamesinNM says:

    Please consider adding the option for one-time donation to your donation site. I would prefer to give a donation that does not require me to authorize ongoing use of my credit card. I am a regular reader, probably not a high volume reader, but am willing to donate the annual donation in a single donation rather than recurring donations.

  417. JamesinNM says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Read Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Those verses expose the great scam foisted on humanity and explained in the reader survey titled “Defense of the True Israel” located on the www dot MissionToIsrael dot org web site.

  418. Sean says:
    @utu

    Heroism is obedience to a secret impulse of an individual’s character. Now to no other man can wisdom appear as it does to him, for every man must be supposed to see a little farther on his own proper path than anyone else [so] every heroic act measures itself by its contempt of some external good…

    The Complete Essays and Other Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson

  419. iffen says:
    @Colin Wright

    AaronB probably doesn’t have any money

    AaronB is a spiritual being and spits on money, or would, if spiritual beings could spit.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  420. Ron Unz says:
    @notsaying

    I see that a lot of people are willing to pay. I would urge you to take them up on that offer and not charge people, as such, for access without seeing first what you can get from volunteers. That system seems to work for Steve Sailer; he gets paid enough from volunteers to keep going without any other job as far as I know.

    I hate to say it, but some of the commenters here seem to have a severe misunderstanding of our expenses…

    Steve Sailer draws a fairly substantial regular salary from this website, probably far more than he gets from his periodic donation fund-drives. I certainly don’t begrudge those payments since he played a crucial role in originally getting this webzine off the ground, and still draws about 25% of our total traffic.

    All our other bloggers also receive stipends, as do many of our columnists. We also play republication fees to various other websites.

    Our hosting costs or electricity are totally negligible. But our payments provide the primary or supplementary income to a couple of dozen writers or webzines whose “unorthodox” views make it difficult for them to otherwise obtain financial support.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Skeptikal
  421. @Fran Taubman

    ‘We are not nut jobs and neither are the people who are anti Israel. If you cannot tell the difference between crazies and legit or do not understand my point. Well …..’

    I’d say it’s a matter of you not understanding what you are supporting.

  422. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Well, Rupert Murdoch is worth $20B, Jeff Bezos is worth $100B, and that guy in LA is worth 7B. So why do the WSJ, the WashPost, and the LA Times charge subscription fees? And frankly, I only have a tiny sliver of the wealth of those particular individuals, probably far less than you seem to strangely believe.

    Why would you want to compare yourself to those guys!?

    A better/counter example would be Pierre Omidyar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Omidyar

    [MORE]

    First Look Media Works (FLMW) is the not-for-profit arm of First Look Media, established by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar. […] As FLMW is fully committed to transparency, we are providing our financial documents here, IRS Form 990, which is an annual return we file as a federal tax-exempt organization.

    https://firstlook.media/about

    He created a nonprofit to house The Intercept in order to insulate our mission from commercial pressures and ensure that we could operate with full editorial independence.

    https://theintercept.com/donor-faq/

    In the past you stated that:

    Frankly, the total operating budget of The Review is so small by comparison, I can’t see why I wouldn’t continue it almost indefinitely, especially now that I may now finally—finally!—be able to start writing once again. Anyway, I’m certainly quite pleased with how it’s been doing.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/why-the-american-conservative-purged-its-own-publisher/#comment-2349922

    and

    Well, it’s difficult to believe any billionaire-type would be willing to pump an ocean of funding into this publication without also requiring control, and the last time I tried something like that at TAC it didn’t really work out so well.
    […]
    One thing I’ve learned from my decades of involvement in political campaigns is that there’s only a very slight correlation between financial inputs and political impact outputs, with effective strategy being enormously more important.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/why-the-american-conservative-purged-its-own-publisher/#comment-2350094

    Has the Review’s “shoestring” operating budget changed to a material degree since you wrote that?

    I know you added new bloggers and contributors.

    Are you still pleased how the UR is doing?

    You are confusing readers and commenters, and quite frankly yourself, with your sudden desire and call for funding, in my humble opinion, particularly since the UR now gets funding through https://www.patreon.com/UnzReview , which was not the case yet, when you wrote the above cited comments.

    It’s not that much, but $15,000+ a year is not bad for a start.

    Maybe some of the heavy UR users are already contributing through Patreon, have you ever asked them?

    Do you believe charging commenters or heavy users will generate more than the monthly $1,400 you are currently receiving through Patreon?

    You have to find out and then communicate properly and clearly what your real desires, intentions and needs are, Mr.Unz.

    Is money the problem, are annoying commenters or have you changed/lost your vision/passion for your Unz Review project, i.e. are you bored with it or burned out from it?

    Ask yourself these questions and then be honest with yourself and with us and make the changes you really want to make and need.

    At the moment you are conflating all these different types of issues and it’s just confusing.

    • Agree: Fran Taubman, Dissident
  423. Old Jew says:
    @iffen

    You wrote:

    ……. “Well, they do have all the money, right? ”

    Exactly!!!

    I own the Federal Reserve..

    sf

    • Replies: @Art
  424. @Ron Unz

    ‘I hate to say it, but some of the commenters here seem to have a severe misunderstanding of our expenses…’

    Fine, and this is actually illuminating. I, too, did not realize all this.

    But eventually, this is going to reach the point where you’ll simply be evading taking responsibility for something only you can take responsibility for.

    Charging for the cheeseburger. Is it $2.50? $6.00? What?

  425. @iffen

    ‘AaronB probably doesn’t have any money

    AaronB is a spiritual being and spits on money, or would, if spiritual beings could spit.’

    Cool!

    Even if he’s ordinarily indigent, he surely can get together 10k of that money he doesn’t care about and give it to Ron in exchange for being allowed to post his ‘UberJew Manifesto’ or whatever he’s trying out for the bullshit du jour.

    He’ll be enlightening us all!

    He could even bar comments! (think about it, Aaron).

    Isn’t that worth it? And after all, I really don’t think he’s going to buy me that deep-sea cruiser I’d like to have.

  426. Ron is not being straightforward about the use of commentators, are they the draw to this site or are the articles. Because we could just pay to read like Commentary and not comment.
    I do not understand the commentators role in the UR?

  427. Art says:
    @Old Jew

    ……. “Well, they do have all the money, right? ”

    Exactly!!!

    I own the Federal Reserve..

    Come on Old Jew — Your Jew tribe does own the Fed Reserve.

  428. Implement a Troll Tax while you’re at it.

    Am prepared to pay, whether it’s micro payments or monthly subscription.

    You are right to distrust advertising revenue.

    Keep up the good work. People value what they pay for.

  429. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    “I hate to say it, but some of the commenters here seem to have a severe misunderstanding of our expenses…”

    Why do you “hate to say it”?
    And, have you ever set forth an explanation of your expenses, so that commenters would understand them?
    Do you actually want commenters to thoroughly understand your expenses?

  430. Biff says:
    @Skeptikal

    However, the idea of charging users by the hour is a real turn-off.
    In fact, I agree that this whole Google analytics thing is more than a bit creepy.
    If that is to be the way things are going forward, I would forgo using this site.

    He did mention that by charging user fees it would help get rid of the trolls, but he didn’t mention that by threatening the comment section with user fees it would expose all the crybabies.

  431. Ron Unz says:

    I’m now closed this comment-thread and published a follow-up piece outlining some of my new ideas based on several excellent suggestions by commenters:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/charging-for-comments/

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS