I likely discovered Unz Review through Henry Makow, whose work I’ve followed for years. For over five years, I promoted Unz on my site as a credible source on the JQ. However, when my critical remarks about Jews were censored—just as at Mike Adams’ Natural News—I stopped visiting. My main argument is that Unz claims to support open discussion, but its moderation censors criticism, thereby restricting dialogue and contradicting its commitment to free speech. This gap between stated values and actions is the core of my critique.
A parallel experience occurred with Unz. I regularly read its featured articles, which were typically detailed and offered varied perspectives. While Andrew Anglin’s tone was vulgar, obscene, and objectionable, most contributors presented thoughtful commentary on world events and the JQ.
Unz appeared to support free speech but enforced restrictions: three comments per article per hour, five replies within eight hours, and moderation delays of minutes to hours.
After two weeks, my commenting stopped abruptly. In a discussion on Hua Bin’s “Why China is Confident about a War with the U.S. Part 2,” I observed three pro-China accounts—possibly bots or agents—posting hostile, irrational replies, mainly based on online sources rather than historical works.
If these accounts were based in China, it was new to me; I rarely interact online with people abroad, though social media makes it possible. Bots also seem to be present on many exchanges. These contributors defended China assertively, becoming upset when I referenced Jewish bankers’ influence.
Here is a comment from one of the Chinese commenters, whose name is in Chinese characters, so I’ll just post his comment. Notice his belligerence. “To be fair, if I weren’t Chinese, I might not think you are such a pathetic idiot.
Your logic goes like this: “Although the United States is controlled by Jewish bankers, we are not slaves, while the Chinese are slaves. Therefore, we can win.”
What a pitiful and foolish person!
Living an unhappy life oneself, then starting to imagine that others are also suffering. Is there any possibility that only you are a slave while we are not?
Is there a possibility that we actually don’t have any large piles of loans to pay off?
Is it possible that we don’t actually need to sell blood or do odd jobs to survive?
Is it possible that the phenomenon where people can’t afford their loans, and their families end up going bankrupt, only occurs in the United States? Is there a possibility that the idiot is only you?
Your logic goes like this: “Although the United States is controlled by Jewish bankers, we are not slaves, while the Chinese are slaves. Therefore, we can win.”
What a pitiful and foolish person!
Living an unhappy life oneself, then starting to imagine that others are also suffering. Is there any possibility that only you are a slave while we are not?
Is there a possibility that we actually don’t have any large piles of loans to pay off?
Is it possible that we don’t actually need to sell blood or do odd jobs to survive?
Is it possible that the phenomenon where people can’t afford their loans, and their families end up going bankrupt, only occurs in the United States? Is there a possibility that the idiot is only you?
You’re so pathetic. Why don’t you just commit suicide earlier? That would help reduce the number of low-IQ people in the world.”
A commenter recommending suicide underscored the hostility and lack of constructive discussion on Unz. This incident highlights how Unz’s moderation methods, by allowing such hostile comments but restricting critical or dissenting content, may foster echo chambers and discourage open discourse.
Tamo, claiming not to be Chinese but defending China, also responded with insults and dismissive language when unable to engage in reasoned debate. The use of insults reduced the quality of the discussion.
Here was Tamo’s last comment to me,
“Dumb ass, I don’t care about communism so that you are barking up the wrong tree. You are nothing but a wotrthless brain-washed extrme right- winger whose little brain has been stuck in the 1950s and 60s.
Communism DIED in China with the death of Mao. There is not much communistic about the present -day China with the exeption of the name of the ruling party.Communism as a political ideology has been proven as a failure.
What you have in China now is pretty much like an authoritarian traditional Chinese dynasty based on Confucianism.
I admire what China has accomplished over the last 40 years. Very soon China will be the technologically most advanced nation as China was BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.
Also Chinese economy right now is already the biggest in the world in PPP terms as China was BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.
No wonder stupid brain -washed right-wing reactionaries like you are incapable of understanding the post Cold War transformation of the world.
You are so stupid that after accusing of Jews of all kinds of things, now you claim you are not antisemitic. Hey asshole, something is very wrong with your tiny brain’s thought process.
For your information, your bs MAGA is a lot bigger than Trump. I think you dimbass are one of Fuente’s boys.”
Tamo’s response illustrates a pattern: when debate reaches an impasse, personal attacks occur. Additionally, accusations of antisemitism and selective moderation may actively restrict dissenting opinions and weaken the depth of discussion, contradicting the platform’s intent to maintain open dialogue.
Further attempts to reply failed, reinforcing that Unz restricts dialogue and criticism despite claiming support for free speech.
“I don’t take personally the flippant insults you begin directing at anyone who criticizes your idol, China.
I don’t know why my last comment to you didn’t post, but I’ll try again.
It is notable how you—and many Americans, along with hundreds of millions globally—have been extensively educated in recognizing racism and antisemitism, yet may not have encountered the term “Loxism,” which denotes animosity toward White people. A brief review of your comments suggests consistent criticism of Whites, which you seem to have overlooked. At the same time, you do not appear to criticize China.
There was a book written by a Jewish communist, Cohen, in 1912, titled “A Racial Program for the 20th Century.” The book has been completely wiped from the internet, and Jews claim it’s a conspiracy theory and antisemitic. Still, if we examine the media and your hostile attitude towards Whites, along with the guilt millions of Whites feel, along with the resentment hundreds of millions of non-Whites feel towards Whites, we see whether this is true or not. It appears likely it is; there is definitely an agenda at work. The primary target is Blacks, but the agenda is aimed at all Whites and non-Whites, too.
“ We must realize that our party’s most potent weapon is in racial tension. By propagandizing into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America, we will aim for a subtle victory.
While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”
While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”
Communism never died in Russia or in China. Your nations are both still run by communism. There is a book by the Russian Golitsyn, “New Lies for Old,” which I recommend you read. He details how it was a clever trick by Russian communists to pretend in 1991 that communism was overthrown when Yeltsin replaced Gorbachev.
Throughout your comments, you haven’t cited a single book you’ve read. Yet, you adamantly defend ideas shaped online and display a confidence that suggests infallibility, though most readers would see otherwise. Conceit repels everyone but the conceited.
Not a single reader on this website concurs with your terrible attitude and your often erroneous ideas. Even your fellow Chinese supporters aren’t entirely in agreement with you. It doesn’t matter if all 1.5 billion Chinese agree with you. Right makes might, not might makes right. You are no different from the mighty King Xerxes, who tried to invade Greece with a vastly superior army, and he was soundly whipped. He barely won at the battle of Thermopylae, and was smashed by Miltiades and the Athenians on the Plains of Marathon in 490 B.C.
You have a high level of confidence, given the limited depth of the research you cite.
Humility often comes before honor, a principle recognized by Confucius.
<blockquote>“It is better to begin with doubts and to end in certainties, than to begin with certainties and to end in doubts.”
Francis Bacon</blockquote>
Francis Bacon</blockquote>
Frequent use of insults and unsubstantiated claims does not persuade or convince others. An effective argument requires respectful and logical engagement.
I am surprised by your strong opposition to me and others, as many hope for China to be restored to its former prominence prior to the 19th-century opium trade. This does not indicate enmity.
We may have shared concerns, as external influences can contribute to divisions and mutual suspicion between nations. Divergent media narratives shape perceptions among Americans and Chinese, often creating a divide. This outcome is well documented and commonly described as ‘divide and conquer’.”
In summary, my experience on Unz directly illustrates my main argument: assertive moderation combined with confrontational user behavior restricts genuine dialogue. When platforms limit criticism and allow debates to devolve into personal attacks, true open discussion is lost. Platforms that claim to support discussion must address these restrictive moderation practices; otherwise, they suppress diverse perspectives and foster echo chambers. Constructive engagement depends on respectful conversation, not on unnecessary restrictions and incivility.
I attempted to post my response four times without success. This experience supported my primary point: I no longer engage with sites that permit vulgar, obscene, and profane comments while censoring responses. This pattern is common across American comment sections and often goes unnoticed. It may be advisable for readers to avoid sites with comment sections that use bots, and there are practically no comment sites online that are guaranteed to be free of them. Without assurance of genuine participation, refraining from commenting may be prudent. On my website, moderation is enforced, profanity is disallowed, and suspected automated comments are removed.
There are two sides to this problem. People who claim we need anonymity to prevent being doxxed and attacked, and then there are the thousands of us who are out in the open, facing whatever lies ahead of us, trusting in God. We don’t trust these anonymous accounts at all. Too easy for bad actors and bots to be involved. What has improved in America with all of this reading online articles and commenting online? After likely billions of hours spent reading and writing comments online, Americans are more divided than ever. And that’s by design, because when we are interacting with millions of bots and having to deal with algorithms, shadow bans, and secret agents, there will never be unity and harmony online. It’s a clever way to pretend to be giving us the truth while feeding us disinformation and keeping us hopelessly divided.
Americans must leave the comment sections online. We will never unite that way, to my mind.
