Ron Unz is a Jew brought up in Los Angeles, one with a good brain and a background in theoretical physics. He runs a website publishing articles written by various people with interesting things to tell, but who are not part of the Mainstream Media. The Wiki tells us that he is an Anti-Semite. It does not say that he is wrong. The Anti-Defamation League, a bunch of corrupt liars run by Jews, for Jews is quite specific about his output. California Entrepreneur Ron Unz Launches a Series of Rhetorical Attacks on Jews. But each allegation is prefaced with "he claims" or similar phrasing. Ron is rich enough to sue them for Libel and they know it. Their accusations amount to an admission of evil, the evil of Jews.
But Ron wrote what may be an answer, a riposte, telling us why he publishing; his piece is at Ron Unz Versus Mainstream Media. He aims to discredit the MSM by proving their dishonesty. He analyses some monstrously misleading stories. The real cause of Covid-19 is just one.
In other important recent articles, The Jewish Threat, The Power of Organized Crime & John McCain Jeffrey Epstein and Pizzagate Mr Unz tells us a lot about the ugly realities of modern society. The corruption that is the Mainstream Media is just one aspect. The political elite is just as bad. He followed on briskly with Oddities of the Jewish Religion, which really does expose evil. Ron is going to be even more unpopular in his local synagogue.
The Chicago Syndicate did help Kennedy make it to the White House. Ditto for Penny Pritzker one of a family of rich thieving Jews; she chose Obama to run for Democrats. He was their puppet. I fancy that he did not quite play it their way but he did make her the United States Secretary of Commerce, a rather convincing pay off. Hillary Clinton was another chancer out of Chicago. Her face fitted with the Puppet Masters.
Then there was
Harry Truman, he was a tool of organised crime. So says Ron. His view is
confirmed by the
Wiki. For some reason
The American
Spectator Alleges That Ron Unz Is Lying or at least wrong. But then it is a
part of the media, another Propaganda machine. Is
it just Ron telling us that Big Business is bent? NO!
Fred tells us that
The Mask Comes Off, Putrefaction Most Foul in Washington.
PS Ron's little self written biography is at
Summary Biography of Ron Unz.
Another is called Who Is
Ron Unz?
He was interviewed on
Spotify
under the title
Ron Unz on the Subprime Mortgage Crisis.
He sounds reasonable. You agree? If not tell me why. Abuse is an
admission of failure, of having nothing sensible to say.
UPDATE:- Why is Ron out there, on line taking positions on various issues? Why
does he publish other writers with things to say, with divergent views? Go to
Ron Unz Versus Mainstream Media
to know.
ANOTHER UPDATE:- Ron wrote
Publishing My Political Memoirs
telling us about his successes and even his failure. He gives links to some of
his more important articles.
UPDATE 2023-08-02:-
David Cole, a
Jew explains Ron at
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-rights-ideological-dysgenics/ telling us
that he is a failed politician and a right wing crazy. Believe him or believe
him not. Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself. I am
seriously unconvinced.
UPDATE 2023-11-14:-
The Unz Report
Is Explained, sort of by
Media Bias Fact
Check. Believe it if you want. I do not.
Ten Years of American Pravda and The Unz Review
Ron explains why he writes. Linking to his major articles helps; it is a reading list to disillusion anyone who takes the Mainstream Media at face value.
The Jewish Threat
Is about the views of leading generals in the U.S. Army, men with access to all intelligence sources. This is why they knew that Jews were and, in fact are dangerous to Western Civilization. They were written up by Joseph Bendersky, a Jew. Their assessments were confirmed by John Beaty PhD, a colonel of the Army in his book, The Iron Curtain Over America
The Power of Organized Crime
The power and the organisation come together in the synagogues or among Jews generally. Even the Mafia families in New York are heavily interlarded with them.
John McCain Jeffrey Epstein and Pizzagate
It turns out that McCain was even more vicious than I thought. Epstein got off lightly the first time round but now he is being thrown to the wolves. His face no longer fits. Paedophiles are not popular. The BBC protects them. Do people who matter in America do the same? It looks that way.
Oddities of the Jewish Religion
Is the innocuous title of a pungent, no holds barred article about the realities of God's Chosen People. It isn't pretty, it really is not. With over a thousand comments that are very largely favourable you might think that Ron has got it right.
Censorship in the 1940s
It was easier then for the Establishment to hide the truth. The Internet loosened things up. They hate it. Edward Snowden proved that we are being screwed. They hate him far more. Here Ron tells us about ancient evil.
Ron Unz ex Wiki
Ron Keeva Unz (born September 20, 1961) is a former businessman, best known for an unsuccessful race in the California gubernatorial election, 1994, and for sponsoring propositions promoting structured English immersion education. He was publisher of The American Conservative from March 2007 to August 2013. He now publishes The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection: A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media.[1]Of [ 100% ] Jewish descent and raised in a Yiddish speaking household,[2] Unz attended North Hollywood High School and, in his senior year, won first place in the 1979 Westinghouse Science Talent Search.[3] He attended Harvard University, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics and ancient history.[4] He then went to the University of Cambridge and eventually to Stanford University to begin doctoral work in theoretical physics, which he never completed. He was later awarded a master's degree by Stanford.[5][6]
Unz worked in the banking industry writing software for mortgage securities during his studies, and founded a company called Wall Street Analytics in Palo Alto, California. In 2006 his company was acquired by the ratings firm Moody's.[7]
The American Spectator Alleges That Ron Unz Is Lying
by
Ben Sixsmith
Executive Summary: Believe it if you want. I do not.
QUOTE
Ron Unz is a curious man, both in the sense of being curious about things and in the sense of inspiring curiosity. Born in California into a Jewish family, Unz studied at Cambridge and Stanford before making millions through a financial-software firm. Some of us would have retired at that point to enjoy life with no more arduous pursuits than the occasional swim but not Unz. He began to involve himself with politics.In the 1990s, Unz was best known for the humble cause of promoting California Proposition 227, which attempted to promote monolingual education in Californian schools to advance immigrant assimilation. A somewhat bewildered CNN profile made note of his resourcefulness, intelligence and ambition — or, as they characterised it, his hubris.
Unz was also building a reputation as a writer. His articles, for newspapers and magazines like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard, largely focused on education but his most significant and controversial essay, for the neoconservative journal Commentary, put Proposition 227 into the context of ‘California and the End of White America’. Unz approved of the demographic transformation of the state and the US but emphasised the need to promote assimilation or else face native discontent. ‘There are few forces that could so easily break America as the coming of white nationalism,’ his essay concluded.
Given these ambitious progressive sentiments it was surprising when, in March 2007, he became the publisher of The American Conservative. Founded by three paleoconservatives, Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell and Taki Theodoracopulos, the magazine had become an influential voice of opposition to US wars and mass immigration. Unz has written that he found the latter theme obnoxious but that he valued the magazine’s anti-interventionism. He invested much of his fortune in the magazine, and, in time, began to use it as an outlet for his writings.
Unz wrote some of the magazine’s most successful essays. A piece arguing that Hispanics did not have high crime rates was applauded in the liberal press. An analysis of bias against Asian-Americans in Harvard’s admissions system was widely discussed and encouraged the creation of the Free Harvard, Fair Harvard campaign on which he worked with veteran leftist Ralph Nader.
Unz left The American Conservative in 2013. He argues he was forced out for submitting contentious material while the editor claimed that he was arrogant and overbearing. Unz created his own sites, which included archives of old books and essays and The Unz Review, an online journal of opinion.
The Unz Review wasn’t bad in its first years. It was edgier than The American Conservative. There was much to disagree with. But it also contained much of interest. Unz had begun to finance and publish nationalists, which he rationalised by saying that he did not agree with them but thought that they deserved a space in the public sphere. He also published acres of anti-Israel content, which became more tedious than anything.
Unz’s own writings became more combative. He had begun a series called ‘American Pravda’, which exposed forgotten history and assessed conventional wisdom. Some pieces were edifying. Others were hard to swallow. An interesting article on the almost entirely forgotten ‘Zebra Killers’ — Black Muslim murderers who targeted white people — spiralled off into insinuations about Emmett Till possibly assaulting Carolyn Bryant, insinuations based largely on the fact that his father, who his mother had kicked out when young Emmett was an infant, — had been a rapist. To smear Till without evidence seemed obnoxious.
The suspicion that Unz’s contrarian instincts were growing out of control was exacerbated when he published an article by the radical Muslim conspiracy theorist and fantasiser about the deaths of journalists Kevin Barrett which somehow worked Holocaust denial into an analysis of a theology book. It was nasty rubbish.
In June, Unz published an essay saluting the ‘remarkable’ historiography of David Irving. In his legal fight against the historian Deborah Lipstadt, Unz wrote, Irving’s work was analysed ‘line-by-line, footnote-by-footnote’ by historians who ‘came up empty’. Readers of expert witness Richard J. Evans’s report on Irving’s scholarship will know this to be false. Unz followed this essay with an approving appraisal of the Nazis’ treatment of France that never once mentioned their millions of murders in Central and Eastern Europe, long articles implicating Mossad in the killings of John and Robert Kennedy and a series of analyses of Jewish history which concluded that Judaism entails ‘the enslavement or execution of all non-Jews’, that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is ‘a classic of political thought’, that the Holocaust almost certainly did not take place in a recognisable form and that anti-Semitism has in general been well-founded.
To even critique such arguments as one might essays on economics and constitutional law might be considered ill-advised if not offensive. Still, empirical arguments demand empirical responses, because, if nothing else, it might be thought that silence in the face of a claim is an admission of defeat. A comprehensive response to Unz’s voluminous arguments would fill a book if not a series of them. There are at least three defective features of his ramblings, though, which are characteristic of excessively conspiratorial thought:
- Take an interesting fact, strip it from its context and frame it in the way that is worst for one’s targets — in this case, by and large, the Jews. As his primary evidence that Judaism is based on murderous hatred for gentiles, for example, he mentions the late Sephardic rabbi Ovadia Yosef claiming ‘the Goyim were born only to serve us’, an interesting and unpleasant fact! But what Unz does not mention is that the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and members of the Israeli government up to and including the Prime Minister criticised Yosef’s extremism.
- Cite a source without properly representing its contents. Unz claims, for example, that Winston Churchill’s 1920 article on ‘Jewish Bolsheviks’ was ‘nearly as hostile and nasty towards Jews’ as Hitler would be in Mein Kampf. This puts so much strain on the word ‘nearly’ that it collapses upon inspection. Churchill was nothing like as combative and vitriolic as his future adversary.
- Cite a controversial source without question. Unz bases the extraordinary claim that ‘religious Jews apparently pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God’, for example, solely on the word of a professor of organic chemistry. Unz suggests that a work of Holocaust denial ‘persuasively demonstrates’ that far fewer Jews were killed than has been thought and encourages readers to ‘take a look and decide for themselves’, but does not mention its numerous, detailed rebuttals.
There is no denying that Unz bases his arguments on interesting information. It is interesting, for example, that the wealthy Jewish banker Jacob Schiff strongly supported Russian revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia. Appalled by the violent anti-Semitism under the Tsar’s rule he recklessly fomented revolution. This is a sobering fact but leads Unz to jump to the grand conclusion that ‘the notion that the international Jewish bankers created the worldwide communist movement…appears to be more or less true.’ He ignores the evidence in Anthony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution that many Jewish and non-Jewish bankers and politicians were integral to the success of Bolshevism. He ignores the evidence in Sutton’s book and Priscilla Roberts’ paper ‘Jewish Bankers, Russia and the Soviet Union’ that while Schiff admired Kerenksy, he not only intellectually but materially opposed the Bolsheviks. The relationship between Jews and communism is an interesting one, but leaving no room for nuance in one’s discussion of it is in keeping with that of a different but no less infamous propaganda rag to Pravda.
The path that Unz has taken is not unique to him. His work draws heavily on the historical revisionists who worked for different outlets and offshoots of Willis Carto’s fringe populist organisation the Liberty Lobby, including The Spotlight, American Free Press and the Institute for Historical Review. Unz’s colleague Philip Geraldi and Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts have both been published by American Free Press. At their worst the people in these spheres hated as naturally as they drank and slept. At their best their loathing of the wars of America and its allies led them to a strange, impulsive sympathy for whoever they happened to be fighting.
It seems that Unz is fairly new to these subjects. Throughout his essays, he describes his ‘shock’ on finding that ideas he had ‘always dismissed without consideration, were probably correct.’ He had ‘naively believed what [he] had read in [his] textbooks’ but now experienced ‘tremendous humiliation for having spent most of my life being so totally wrong about so many things.’
Unz’s earlier writings betray few signs of being the work of someone who might harbour the beliefs that he now holds. True, he wrote in 2001 that ‘the long confrontation between the Israelis and the Palestinians’ was a ‘contributing factor’ to 9/11 but when he referred in the same piece to ‘Jewish religious lunatics’ it was to undeniable nutbags like the vicious terrorist Baruch Goldstein. The Iraq War understandably outraged him, and his sentiments became more radical. He suggested, for example, that the neoconservative writer Lawrence Kaplan was ‘somewhat nervous that he and his fellows may soon face trial and execution for their promotion of this war.’ I am unaware of this possibility occurring to anyone else outside the most fevered fringes of the blogosphere.
Unz did not tend to write on Israel or US foreign policy for The American Conservative but he did fund anti-Zionist websites and researchers such as Mondoweiss and Norman Finkelstein [ Jews both - Editor ]. Still, I suspect the roots of his current opinions lie not in Jewish anti-Semitism but a kind of runaway contrarianism.
Contrarianism begins, by and large, with the valid conclusion that many of the ‘facts’ that we are told — by politicians, or the media, or academic and religious institutions — are less than wholly true. You begin to question other aspects of conventional wisdom. There is nothing wrong in this. Yet your questions, and methods of answering them, have to be rational. Otherwise your iconoclastic instincts are unmoored from reason; your passions and biases take over in the flattering guise of independent thought. You question established narratives but swallow alternative claims. You leap to alternative ideas but avoid questioning yourself. In the most extreme cases, you begin by questioning the grounds for preemptive wars and ends by claiming that religious Jews routinely worship Satan.
That, sadly, appears to be what has happened to Ron Unz.
UNQUOTE
Is this propaganda or truth. The former is my view. The writer, Ben Sixsmith tells us that Ron chose to believe a "professor of organic chemistry", implying that he is a credulous fool. He does not name him in order to obscure the truth. Believe him if you want. Of course the professor is Israel Shahak, a Jew who went through various Concentration Camps, the Jews' army in Palestine, taught in a Jerusalem university then became a highly regarded political activist. Professor Shahak believed that Palestinians have human rights, a very unpopular view in that shitty little country that thieves call Israel.
Google And Facebook Censor Ron Unz [ 27 May 2020 ]
QUOTE
After several months of record-breaking traffic our alternative media webzine suffered a sharp blow when it was suddenly purged by Facebook at the end of April. Not only was our rudimentary Facebook page eliminated, but all subsequent attempts by readers to post our articles to the world’s largest social network produced an error message describing the content as “abusive.” Our entire website had been banned.Facebook publishes a monthly report cataloging its actions to eliminate “improper content,” and although our publication was probably one of the largest and most popular ever so proscribed, the explanation provided was remarkably cursory, with our name mentioned in only two scattered sentences across the 47 page document.
Our investigation linked this network to VDARE, a website known for posting anti-immigration content, and individuals associated with a similar website The Unz Review.
Although the people behind this operation attempted to conceal their coordination, our investigation linked this network to VDARE, a website known for posting anti-immigration content, and to individuals associated with a similar website The Unz Review.
As I’ve previously discussed, characterizing our alternative media publication as an “anti-immigration” website “similar” to VDare seemed utterly bizarre considering that only about 0.2% of our 2020 content was republished from that source and many months had elapsed since we had last featured a piece on immigration. So I strongly suspected that the claim merely served as an excuse.
I don’t use Facebook or other social networks myself, and noticed little reduction in our daily traffic following that purge, which seemed to underscore our lack of reliance upon social media. But a week later, this abruptly changed, and our regular daily readership dropped by a significant 15-20%, hardly a crippling blow but quite distressing, setting us back many months of previous growth...........................
The other pages of our website have been similarly blacklisted, effectively eliminated from all web searches courtesy of Google’s information monopoly. This even included the periodical content library that I had built during the 2000s, containing the near-complete archives of hundreds of America’s most influential publications of the last 150 years. Millions of these important articles are available nowhere else, and their disappearance represents a tremendous loss to academic scholarship..........
For hundreds of years since the Treaty of Westphalia [ 1648 AD ], the lives of diplomats have been almost always treated as sacrosanct, and a typical response to breaking such international conventions might be tit-for-tat retaliation. China’s leadership tends to be remarkably pragmatic, and recognizes that its national strength is rapidly growing even as our own society decays and declines, so perhaps they will forego any such reaction, at least for the time being. But if any American diplomats or other ranking officials begin to suffer strange fatalities, the explanation may be less than mysterious, though Google and Facebook will certainly do their best to keep it so.
UNQUOTE
Ron Unz is a Jew, one that publishes a large range of interesting articles. Facebook [ set up by crooked Jews ] and Google are abusing their market dominance. They do not like Ron or the truth. But we can use Start Page or Duckduckgo [ good for privacy] Alternatively look at 17 Great Search Engines You Can Use Instead of Google. NB You might wonder why Du Wei, the Chinese ambassador to Israel, age 57, had been found dead at his home. Perhaps he was not murdered by Mossad. They are not talking about it or the Jeffery Epstein Murder.
The Ukraine And Truth Versus Mainstream Media Propaganda [ 3 March 2022 ]
Ron Unz sources reality. Yes, Washington meddling did set off the Ukraine problems in 2014 & now in 2022. Yes, the American germ warfare department at Fort Detrick did set up the Covid-19 attack on China as well as earlier outbreaks. Yes, the Media collude in heavyweight censorship. Yes, Facebook & Twitter have blacked Ron out. Is this another crazy Conspiracy Theory? Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.
The Unz Report Explained
by
Media Bias Fact Check
QUOTE
- Overall, we rate The Unz Review a Questionable Source due to extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and hate, and utilizing poor sources.
UNQUOTE
The allegation that Ron uses poor sources is WRONG. Am I going to take this source seriously? No but I will see what they have to say about the BBC. I assume it will be alleged to be honest. It is NOT. Protecting Jimmy Savile & Rolf Harris were sins of commission. Suppressing the truth is a continuous sin of omission. In fact it is alleged to be slightly to moderately left wing - see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/. Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.
PS It rates the Free Speech Union as
Overall, the Free Speech Union is right-biased based on advocacy and editorial positions that align with a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing techniques and one-sided reporting that excludes opposing viewpoints.I am not impressed.