Keith Woods: All right. Welcome, everyone. I’m back. I have a big guest today. A lot of you were really looking forward to this, and a lot of you have requested this before. It’s Ron Unz, the editor publisher of the Unz Review, one of my favourite websites. I often plug it at the end of streams here. You’ll notice when I’m recommending links for people to check out. And yeah, great, great aggregator of stuff that’s kind of broadly in the sort of dissident Right scene, or not even just dissident Right.

 

I mean, they publish people like Michael Hudson and so on. And his own series, American Pravda, is something I would recommend to everyone as well. I’ve been listening to the audio versions of that today where Ron goes over sort of revisionist history, takes on the 20th century as it relates to World War II and the JFK assassination, 9/11, and so on. And yeah, I’m excited to have one. It’s great to have you here, Ron.

 

Ron Unz: Hey, great to be here.

 

Keith Woods: Thank you. So what’s your own background? You don’t seem like the typical kind of person to end up in the position you’re in. It seems like you have a more sort of establishment conservatism background. You’ve been involved in Republican Party politics. So yeah, just like, what’s the general background there of how you made your way to kind of this side of things?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, my original background was actually in theoretical physics.

 

In other words, I originally thought I studied theoretical physics in college, and I thought I’d probably be doing an academic career. And then basically around the mid 1980s, I ended up taking a detour where I took a summer job working on Wall Street. One thing led to another, and I ended up actually spending about the next ten years or 15 years of my life writing financial services software for Wall Street firms. And after about a year or so, I love to set up my own small company. And that really was sort of my main activity for a long period of time like that.

 

Now, I’d always been very interested in public policy and politics, and so after I moved back to California in the early mid 1990s, I ended up becoming involved in some of political campaigns out here. I just was very unhappy about what was going on in the state, and I actually ended up I didn’t expect to win, but I actually ended up challenging Governor Pete Wilson for renomination in his own Republican primary and then got involved in various other issues initiative campaigns, for example. I ran a series of successful initiative campaigns to shift California and the rest of the United States away from teaching immigrant children in their native language, so-called bilingual education towards making sure that they were taught English from the first day of school.

 

In other words, it seemed to me it really made no sense for children when they start school, not to be taught the English language and that ended up really being quite successful.

 

And in fact, bilingual education has largely disappeared around the United States because of those efforts. And I got involved in various other political activities as well. And then probably it was then probably about the mid to late 1990s when I became again actively involved in public policy, again more on the issue of international foreign policy.

 

In other words, I was very concerned about some of the actions we were taking, especially after the 9/11 attacks when we shifted towards the attack on Iraq, the Iraq, War, which I viewed as being probably a disaster.

 

And so I ended up actually providing some financial support to a magazine, the American Conservative, that was set up to oppose the policies of George W Bush with regard to Iraq and a lot of other things like that.

 

And so I ended up serving as a publisher of The American Conservative for about, I guess it was probably about seven or eight years. And then just about a decade ago, I ended up leaving to set up my own website, the Unz Review, which I thought would be a useful venue for my own writings.

 

In other words, at that point, at first I really was thinking more in terms of eventually doing a lot more writing of my own and having a website that I could basically use to publish my material on.

 

And then as it was, I got tied up with some software issues for a few years.

 

And so the website really primarily was providing a location for other writers, alternative media from the Left and the right to really have their articles published. Because in some ways one interesting thing I noticed gradually was that sometimes people, both who considered themselves very much on the Left or on the Right sometimes actually agreed with each other about many things that they might disagree with the more mainstream of the political spectrum on.

 

So it was the sort of thing where I felt by providing an Avenue for both people from the Left-Right libertarian camps to sort of cross-fertilize each other and trade ideas, it would show that sometimes they might agree with each other on things that they didn’t even realize. So that really had been probably the main thing I’ve been involved in over the last ten years.

 

And then about six or seven years ago, I ended up getting much more actively involved in going back to writing of my own. And just as you mentioned, the American Pravda series, which deals with a lot of controversial issues from the last 100 years of American society, is certainly the place where I’ve published most of my articles, basically during the 1990s. Most of my writings probably dealt with issues of race and ethnicity and social policy, affirmative action, bilingual education, multiculturalism, immigration. While probably in the last six or seven years, the focus probably has been more on foreign policy history and again, sort of looking at the history of the 20th century.

 

Now, one other thing I should mention is that from about the mid 1990s onward, I actually was involved in a major project to digitize the collected archives of many of America’s leading public policy magazines or opinion magazines of the last 100 years The Nation, The New Republic, National Review, Harpers, and also a lot of magazines that disappeared that had been once very influential but then had gone out of business. And by going through and digitizing all those old publications, I really came across a lot of facts and interesting aspects of American society from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s that really I’d been very unaware of just by standard college history courses or things like that.

 

So, in other words, it provided a great deal of background information that was new to me and new to other people. And that’s actually one reason I started questioning a lot of the history that I learnt in college. Because when you actually come across articles published in America’s leading magazines from the 1910s and 1920s and you see the picture they portray of American society is so different than what you’d always imagined it was at the time, it really just opens your mind to other possibilities.

 

So, I mean, that’s a fairly long introduction, but that’s basically where I came from on these sorts of issues.

 

[0:07:50]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, you mentioned immigration. You haven’t always had sort of an anti-immigration stance. That’s one thing I noticed looking back at your articles. When did that kind of change happen? You kind of evolved your stance on immigration in around the early 2010s, is that right?

 

Ron Unz: Right. I’ve always had mixed feelings about immigration, but generally very opposed to many of the anti-immigration activists around.

 

In other words, basically, it seems to me, immigration has both positives and negatives. And probably the biggest negative that’s become apparent to me in the last, 20 years looking at American society has been the impact of large scale immigration on economic issues.

 

In other words, one reason, for example, for the severe economic decline of much of American society has been, I think, the very large scale immigration we’ve seen over the last 30 or 40 years. A lot of the critics of immigrants say that immigrants are lazy, they’re on welfare or something like that, or they commit a lot of crime, and I don’t think there’s really any evidence for that at all in American society. Now, it may be different in other countries, but not in America.

 

The problem, though, is that when you bring in a large number of eager workers who are willing to work for low wages, you obviously, by the law of supply and demand, drive down the wages for everybody competing against them in American society. And that, I think, is probably one of the strongest arguments you can make against existing American immigration policy.

 

And the flip side of that is the exact reason why America’s business groups business interests have been so strongly pro-immigrant because they see that large scale immigration helps to keep down the wages of the workers. And so things that are beneficial for, obviously, employers or for business groups can be very harmful sometimes for the economic interests of the workers who they’re employing by driving down their wages.

 

And one of the interesting things about it is if the issue were handled, I think, the right way, it would be much easier for America to solve that problem than many of these, for example, anti-immigrant groups have focused on. And the reason for that is that the groups most competing with new immigrants in American society are existing immigrants, recent immigrants.

 

So for example, if the issue were cast in economic terms like that, I think a very substantial fraction of America’s immigrant or recent immigrant population would be certainly very supportive of the notion of taking steps to reduce the flow of future immigrants.

 

And in fact, one of the issues that I raised that probably was my own contribution to debate, which really had, I think, pretty substantial impact, is the issue of one of the best it’s the minimum wage.

 

In other words, the whole notion of raising the minimum wage to a much higher level by itself, I think would tremendously reduce some of the immigration problems because most of the immigrants who come here are obviously willing to work for relatively low wages. If you raise the wage, the minimum wage, to something much higher, 12 or $15 an hour, it would act as a formidable deterrent towards immigrants basically coming here since they wouldn’t be able to take those jobs very easily. And it would also act as a formidable deterrent towards business groups hiring workers at a lower wage since the wage would not be that much lower. And what I ended up doing about that was basically about seven or eight years ago, I ended up shifting the debate in American society on the minimum wage and successfully causing a revival of the minimum wage as a major issue in American society.

 

So for example, in California right now, the minimum wage is $15 an hour where as of a decade ago it was, I believe, about $8 an hour. So we’ve roughly doubled the minimum wage in California. And the same thing, for example, has happened in various other parts of the country as well, though it’s not happened on the national level. And if more effort were put into raising the minimum wage, I think that would be a very effective means of severely greatly reducing the problems that immigration has been causing in American society and decreased a lot of the incentive for immigration down the road.

 

[0:12:23]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, your articles on immigration are interesting. To look back at them, you were making arguments that were seemed to be very unpopular at the time, that some tropes about Hispanics committing disproportionate amount of crime actually wasn’t accurate, Hispanic immigration.

 

And you also pushed back, which I thought was interesting, against the narrative about the 1965 Immigration Act, right. That’s pretty popular in Right-wing circles in the US. Like, it kind of all went wrong after the 65 Immigration Act. Like that’s what opened the borders. That’s what changed this immigration policy from exclusive to Europeans to open it to everyone. You had a very different take. You said the 1965 Immigration Act actually restricted immigration because it did something about the ease with which South Americans could immigrate to the US.

 

Ron Unz: Sure, it’s really a very simple issue. America traditionally had an open immigration policy for basically most of our history.

 

And then in 1924, an immigration act was passed severely restricting immigration from Europe.

 

In other words, we cut off most of our immigration from Europe, and at the same time it eliminated immigration almost entirely from Asia or from Africa.

 

So in other words, Eastern Hemisphere immigration was largely reduced in the 1920s partly because of concern over these economic issues or political issues.

 

In other words, there was a movement to restrict foreign immigration to the United States, but it excluded the entire Western Hemisphere.

 

So in other words, we kept our open borders policy towards Latin American and Caribbean immigration.

 

In other words, anybody from Mexico or the rest of Latin America who wanted to immigrate to the United States would have to pay something like, I think it was $14 or $18, wait a couple of days, and they could immigrate here. So in a sense, we kept what amounted to an open borders immigration policy towards Latin America. The reason we didn’t have much immigration from Latin America for the 40 years that followed was that Latin America was tremendously underpopulated.

 

In other words, the population density was lower. So there just weren’t that many people who would come here. Some came, but not that many. And then it turns out, in about the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s Mexico and Latin America, the rest of Latin America underwent a tremendous population boom, a population explosion.

 

For example, the population of Mexico, I think had quadrupled in a period of about 50 years, even excluding the large number of Mexicans who moved to the United States. So it turns out the 1965 Immigration Act was widely perceived as increasing immigration to the United States because it reopened the possibility of large scale immigration from Europe and from other parts around the world.

 

In other words, we undid the 1924 Immigration Act, and Europeans suddenly could move to the United States, where for about 40 years, very strict quotas had been placed against most of the European countries.

 

But at the same time, the 1965 Immigration Act also imposed quotas for the first time on Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

 

So in other words, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, there was no limit on Latin American immigration. And given the fact that Latin America was right around then beginning to experience a tremendous population explosion. If not for the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, you could imagine millions upon millions of Latin Americans moving to the United States as immigrants every year.

 

And so while it’s true that about 60 million Latin American, sorry, 60 million Americans are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants from those parts of the world after 1965, if not for the passage of the 1965 Act, the numbers probably would have been much higher. It could have been 100 million or 150,000,000 or something like that, simply because changing immigration law in the United States is obviously a very difficult thing to do politically.

 

And in fact, as you know, I mean, for decades now we’ve been arguing about it, and simply because with business groups very interested in having immigration at very high levels, they can almost always block any members in Congress to reduce immigration.

 

And in fact, for the last, 20 years, business groups have been making an effort to even further open our borders, to have an amnesty and increase immigration even to much higher levels than before. So it sounds, I mean, it’s very counterintuitive. And certainly many individuals focused on immigration issues are under, are unaware of the facts. But the truth is, the 1965 Immigration Act, by sharply restricting immigration from Latin America for the first time, probably prevented much more immigration than it supported.

 

In other words, we had many more immigrants from Europe and we had many more immigrants from Asia than we would have without the 1965 Immigration Act. But if it hadn’t passed, probably Latin American immigration would have been far larger than it ended up being.

 

And since the majority of our immigrants have come from Latin America, it sounds counterintuitive, but the 1965 Immigration Act probably played a role in reducing net immigration to the United States rather than increasing it. And that’s something, again, that most people aren’t aware of its the sort of thing a lot of anti-immigration websites have written on the subject over the years. And when I’ve brought it to their attention and they’ve checked into it, they’ve found out that what I was saying was correct.

 

And so they’ve stopped writing new articles denouncing the 1965 Immigration Act. But they obviously can’t take down the hundreds of articles they’ve previously written on that subject.

 

And so it’s one of these things, it amounts to sort of a mistake that got into circulation about 30 or 35 years ago that probably will never be corrected. But it’s the sort of thing with all those thousands of articles there misfortune the 1965 Immigration Act. It’s hard to say what will happen, but I mean, basically anybody can go and just check the details.

 

In fact, you can even read Kevin MacDonald’s book on The Culture of Critique where he actually discusses the 1965 Act and the fact that it actually, for the first time, restricted immigration from Latin America. So it’s simply a factual matter. And there are a lot of stats floating around the Internet, and that’s simply one of them.

 

Keith Woods: Well, I don’t mind this narrative because it vindicates the Irish, right? We always get blamed for the 65 Immigration Act. Wasn’t it Ted Kennedy?

 

[0:19:26]

 

Ron Unz: Yeah, he actually played a very minor role.

 

In other words, basically he was a very junior Senator at the time. And it’s true. Certainly the Irish groups and jewish groups and Italian groups were all in favour of the 1965 Act because their immigration had been cut off to the United States.

 

And so it was suddenly opened up again after 40 years. But the number of European immigrants the point is, Europe was no longer suffering a population explosion at the time, and Europe had also become quite prosperous by 1965 or 1970. So there wasn’t the pressure to move to the United States that there probably would have been 30 or 40 years earlier.

 

Keith Woods: And you mentioned this a little bit earlier when you’re talking about the arguments around immigration and the fact that you think newer rivals in the US. Could be won over to Nancy immigration position. That’s another narrative that was very popular a few years ago, this narrative about immigration that if it’s not stopped in the US the Republicans will never win another election. And eventually they’ll realize this and they’ll become sort of an implicitly White anti-migration party. Didn’t quite play out that way.

 

But it is interesting looking at some of the polls from the last couple of years where it seems like among what’s classified as Hispanics, however they divide that up, that it’s like 50-50 Democrat-Republican, and some of them even lean Republican. So a lot of the things people took for granted about demographics and the political process there seem to be being challenged.

 

I’m just curious how you see that playing out. Like, do you think the Republican Party can become a party that’s viable in this new multiracial America? And then what does that do for the debate around immigration? It almost seems like it’s taken something of a backseat since Trump. Like there was a little bit of disappointment about Trump, and now I don’t know, I get this feeling among people on the Right in the US that they almost feel like that’s lost to an extent in terms of managing the demographics, like on the state level. But yeah, I don’t know what your feelings are about that.

 

Ron Unz: Well, I certainly think I’m not too surprised that there’s been a substantial shift of Hispanics and Asians towards the Republican Party.

 

In other words, they’re right now getting the Republicans are still getting less than half, but it’s probably 40, 45, sometimes closer to 50% from Hispanic and Asian groups. I don’t think it’s so much that the Republicans have attracted them, but many of the policies of the Democrats have been so disastrous that they’ve pushed many of those groups away.

 

For example, I think probably the biggest issue has been the crime issue.

 

In other words, there’s been a gigantic rise in urban crime in many parts of the country. And you’ve probably seen some of the videos where especially attacks by blacks on Asians, many times elderly Asians have been attacked and killed just walking on the street.

 

And so that, I think, has caused a tremendous shift of Asians towards the Republican Party simply because when you have a situation where there was a massive increase in crime in the United States, urban crime a year or two ago, and the response of many prominent Democrats was to say, we have to defund the police.

 

I mean, that’s utter insanity. And that, I think, is probably the reason many ordinary Hispanics and Asians started giving another look towards the Republican Party.

 

Also, for example, a lot of what I guess you could call the sort of wokeness or the transgenderism, those are not things that are particularly appealing to ordinary Hispanics or Asians or Whites, for that matter blacks. In other words, a lot of people who are more ordinary working class people have been pushed out of the Democratic Party because of some of its extreme positions it’s taken.

 

And so, again, it’s not a question of, like all the Republicans, the Republicans gaining necessarily 60% or 70% of these groups, but there’s definitely been a shift in that direction. It’s interesting that the shift started probably about four or five years ago.

 

In fact, if anything, when Donald Trump was elected, he ended up actually doing much better among Hispanic voters than anybody expected.

 

In other words, the media portrayed Trump as being a fanatic hater of Hispanics, that he attacked Hispanics, that he said all these nasty things about them, and surprisingly enough, he actually got a much larger share of the Hispanic vote than most people expected because he ran on working class concerns.

 

In other words, he ran saying, I intend to improve the economic position of ordinary working class Americans. Most Hispanics are working class, and so they were attracted by that argument, even if they were repelled by some of his other arguments. And then once he came into office, the fact that in some ways the economy was doing better under him caused again, many of those people to shift in his direction.

 

[0:24:30]

 

So the funny thing about it is, even though Donald Trump was portrayed as a tremendous villain by the media, somebody who hated Hispanics, who was anti-Hispanic, racist, he actually came close to getting the highest Hispanic percentage of any Republican president in modern times, almost equaling what Ronald Reagan had done 30 or 40 years ago.

 

So it’s the sort of thing, the Republican Party, if it’s simply concentrated on issues having to do with these economic facts or some of these social issues like the extreme policies in the public school. Sometimes I think it just naturally and a law and order policy I think would probably do much better among Hispanics and Asians and Whites and to some extent blacks than it would be if it simply tried some of these other things.

 

I mean, the whole thing about it, a lot of the Republican elites tend to believe that support for higher levels of immigration is the way to win Hispanic votes, and that’s not at all the case.

 

In other words, Hispanics are mostly motivated by bread and butter issues, by meat and potato issues, and larger scale immigration, in other words, is not something necessarily that improves the economic posture of ordinary Hispanic workers since they would be competing against these new immigrants.

 

And so for that reason, I think, for example, there certainly could be some political strategies the Republicans could follow that would be much more advantageous in that way. But I don’t really see any sign of the Republicans actually adopting it, partly because the Republicans are so much the captive of the same business interests that support large scale immigration that the Democratic Party is as well.

 

So, I mean, from my point of view, I think many of the attacks against immigration over the last, 20 or 30 or 40 years have been severely misguided. But I do think strong arguments can be made towards reducing immigration on entirely different grounds, and I think probably those lines of attack would be much more successful than what the Republican Party or what Conservatives have tried to achieve over the years.

 

Keith Woods: Another thing I’ve noticed recently, especially since I went back looking at Twitter, and I don’t know if this is due to Elon Musk’s, Twitter being more relaxed on this stuff and not having shadow banning, but it does seem like there’s something of a sea change in terms of people are really discussing the issue of black crime now. And it’s not just a few kooks out there like Jared Taylor or Colin Flaherty. It’s quite mainstream Conservatives that are discussing this issue. And you go on Twitter and there’s constantly these viral videos showing what it was like in public schools for White children and so on. Yet Scott Adams and his recent outbursts, which got a lot of support, actually. Yeah.

 

I’m just curious about that it’s kind of something people have been speculating on lately. Why do these mainstream Conservatives that have ignored this for so long seem to be embracing it now? Or is it just an organic thing that the viral effect of this stuff being out there, and after all the years of censorship, that eventually it just reached a boiling point. But yeah, I don’t know if you have a take on that or what, …

 

[0:28:00]

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, all of those things are factors, but another factor is black crime in the United States has become much, much worse than it was a few years ago.

 

In other words, in the aftermath of the George Floyd incident in Minneapolis that really forced a lot of the police to be adopting a much more defensive posture.

 

And again, there have been all these cases of, for example, police being prosecuted on grounds of, for example, sometimes even just shooting back at a black criminal and things like that. And so when you have so many police being very worried that they could become the next sacrificial lamb on something like that, if somebody takes a video of them, I think the police basically have pulled back in a lot of these cities.

 

And at the same time, the media narrative has been so extreme the last couple of years, the notion of, for example, police murdering large numbers of backs, killing blacks for no reason at all, that I think has in turn, enraged much of the black population.

 

And so there’s been a tremendous rise, I think, in the degree of black violence in many of these urban centres. Again, I mean, some of the things, for example, that have happened in San Francisco and other parts of the country, New York City as well. Elderly Asians simply walking on the street and suddenly being attacked and beaten or sometimes even killed by blacks in a random fashion. That was not something that was occurring five or six years ago. And things like that get on YouTube, they get on Twitter, and they go viral in just the way you’re saying.

 

So when you look, for example, at the rate of black homicides, it’s much, much higher than it was a few years ago.

 

Keith Woods: Do the policies of Trump have anything to do with that? He had the First Step Act, and he had a few Acts that kind of relaxed restrictions in terms of letting violent criminals out of prison early and so on. Did that play a factor?

 

Ron Unz: Oh, I think it certainly did.

 

In other words, Trump on that issue, in a sense, followed very much the liberal agenda, which was strange because.

 

I mean, the media portrayed him as an ultra Right-wing fascist or something like that. But I mean, he basically supported the media line of basically letting a lot of criminals out of prison.

 

So, for example, there’s been a tide of that.

 

For example, back about 20, 30 years ago, when crime was very high, there was a massive wave in California and other states to put people in prison for much longer periods of time. There was the three strikes movement, and in California, the percentage of the population incarcerated rose dramatically.

 

So in other words, many more people were put in prison, which might have gone too far in that direction. But on the other hand, with so many people in prison, obviously crime went down.

 

And so then for about 15 years, 15 or 20 years, with a decline in crime rates, partly because of those very high levels of incarceration, then there began a movement saying that we should really let more people out of prison, we should reduce sentencing, we. Should eliminate three strikes. And that ended up developing momentum of its own.

 

So now, for example, the number of people incarcerated in prison in California is much lower than it was ten or 15 years ago, and sentencing is much laxer. Unfortunately, one result of that is that crime rates are much, much higher than they had been, especially violent crime rates, which is what people are most concerned about.

 

There was also an effort, for example, on the part of various liberal or left liberal donors, George Soros being the best example, to fund District Attorneys who would be much less harsh on criminals than before. And that actually happened. The District Attorney, for example, in San Francisco was recalled from office because crime rates had spiked under his laxer policies. And there’s an effort actually to recall the District Attorney in Los Angeles for the same sort of reason.

 

So in other words, it’s been a mixture of a number of different factors. There was a sense that America was incarcerating too many individuals unfairly, and in many cases, those individuals were black. There were too many black men in prison.

 

And so that shifted towards an effort towards letting them out of prison, which resulted in tremendous increase in crime rates, especially in combination with the police being very nervous about being filmed and being sentenced if a criminal ended up dying or was an innocent person was shot in any of their actions.

 

So it’s a mixture of basically the police being much more cautious than they were in the past, District Attorneys sometimes refusing to press charges with the severity they had in the past, and many prisoners being let out of prison. And the result of that has just been much, much higher crime rates before.

 

Also, for example, in some cases in California, for example, I think shoplifting less than I think was like a couple was changed to misdemeanors.

 

So, for example, cases there were video cases where people would, for example, walk into a grocery store or walk into a drugstore and just fill a shopping bag with items that they then would sell on Ebay or sell on the Internet. And when someone like that basically is not prosecuted for the crimes, and when ordinary shoplifters are not prosecuted, it obviously gives people an incentive then to escalating to more serious crimes.

 

And here, for example, in Palo Alto, there have been many cases over the last few years of gangs of ten or 15 or 20 people coming here from Oakland or coming here from another city, rushing in a group into a high end department store and just stealing everything. Stealing, for example, Apple, looting an Apple store, looting other stores, sometimes breaking into, …

 

Keith Woods: Jewelry stores.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. And when things like that get on the Internet and there’s a sense developing that crimes like that are not being punished, it obviously causes many other people to start considering doing something similar.

 

So I mean, crime is certainly a serious problem in the United States, and probably within a few years there’ll be such a reaction against it. We may go back to what we had 20 years ago with much stiffer sentencing, but at least for now, I mean, one reason there’s more concern about crime is that crime is much more severe than it was.

 

[0:34:45]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, the popular issues for the Right are always crime and immigration. Right. I mean, you can see it with the guy in El Salvador, like, massive support for his policies. But yeah, it’s incredible. You get someone like Trump in office and he took extremely liberal positions on that issue. But I’m sure it’ll be more of a focus as maybe immigration becomes a bit more contentious and the country becomes more multiracial. I’m sure the crime issue will come more to the forefront.

 

But by the way, for the people watching, we’re also live on Cozy TV. We actually have more viewers on Cozy than YouTube tonight, which is interesting. The sort of old tech side is winning. There’s 500 watching there live. And you can send Super Chats if you have a question for Ron Unz on Power Chat. The link is there.

 

Now, actually, the reason I asked you on originally was because this thing about the origins of Covid right. The US government started putting this out that now they believe that it came from a Chinese laboratory.

 

And I thought it was interesting because immediately the reaction of the sort of old media types was like, oh, the conspiracy theorists have been proven correct again, and this kind of vindicates us. And we’re always right in the end, and the mainstream has to give in and not approach it with a great deal of skepticism. The government lies about everything, but not this kind of thing. And so, yeah, I went back to your articles on this because you’re one of the few people that has been pushing an alternative theory. There’s kind of been two theories, right. The sort of mainstream accepted theory was it came out of a wet market. It was like a natural mutation.

 

And then a lot of people speculated that it came from the laboratory in Wuhan. There are arguments for that. Supposedly someone that worked on the WHO investigation said that China pressured them heavily not to investigate the lab.

 

But then that’s something they would do either way, right, if they don’t want that narrative circulating. But you’ve promoted an alternative theory that you think elements of the US government or the US Deep State are responsible and that this was a means of sort of economic warfare against China. But instead of me summarizing it, maybe you can explain it to the audience.

 

[0:37:13]

 

Ron Unz: Sure. Well.

 

I mean, the whole thing about is when the virus first appeared in Wuhan, right towards the basically, it was first discovered probably right at the end of 2019.

 

So, in other words, the world started hearing about it in January, early January 2021, obviously, nobody had any idea what was going on.

 

In other words, a mysterious virus suddenly appeared in the city of Wuhan, and it seemed contagious it was spreading. And people also weren’t even sure how dangerous it was, what the death rate would be. And there were obviously a lot of concerns. And fairly quickly, within about a month or two, a standard narrative was formed, the sort of official narrative on the part of the American science establishment that the virus was natural.

 

In other words, it had mutated in probably a bat or some other form of animal, and it spread to the humans in Wuhan and then was going out from there.

 

So, in other words, the natural virus theory ended up being the dominant establishmentarian narrative for about a year, a year and a half in the West. And it was supported by a couple of paper, early papers that came out in nature health and in science magazine, where a number of very respectable scientists said that the virus was obviously natural.

 

Now, at the same time, there was a counter-narrative, fairly widespread in the alternative media and also anti-China groups that got started very early on. And that narrative was that the virus had come from a laboratory.

 

Keith Woods: I remember, sorry to interrupt. I remember Steve Bannon was pushing this very, …

 

Ron Unz: Exactly, and it got started very early.

 

In other words, basically, I ended up hearing it seeing on the internet in January, probably early to mid January, before almost anybody in the world was even focused on Wuhan.

 

In other words, before the virus had spread to any other country. And the story that they were putting out was that the virus had come from the Wuhan Institute of virology. Now, it just so happened the city of Wuhan, most Americans, most Westerners had probably never heard of Wuhan. I don’t think I’d ever heard of Wuhan until the viral outbreak.

 

Wuhan is a large city. It has a population of 11 million, but it’s an interior city, so it’s not the sort of city that most Westerners. It’s not like Beijing or Shanghai. And Wuhan is the site of China’s most advanced viral research facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was set up, I think, about eight or nine years ago.

 

So it makes perfect sense. We suddenly have this mysterious virus appearing in a city in China, and by an amazing coincidence, that same city has China’s most advanced viral laboratory. So it didn’t take too much to put two to two plus two together. And to see that why many people started arguing that the virus had probably leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

In other words, the argument was some people claimed it might have even been developed deliberately as a Chinese bioweapon. Others said, oh, the Chinese were just running experiments on viruses in that facility, and it suddenly leaked out.

 

So in other words, the two arguments that ended up being widespread for really the last three years are, first of all, the natural virus argument, which is basically that the virus is entirely natural. It simply came from some animal species and happened to appear in the city of Wuhan at that time.

 

The other narrative, which was supported by many members of the Donald Trump administration trump sometimes implied it. Mike Pompeo implied at some of the people of his administration is that it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab leak hypothesis. And then once it leaked, it then spread around parts of the city of Wuhan and eventually spread around the rest of the world.

 

So, in other words, it was a Chinese virus that devastated the United States eventually when it got here, that devastated Europe that’s probably killed 20 million people around the world.

 

And so, again, those are perfectly plausible theories.

 

But one thing that made me very suspicious early on, as early as January, before almost anybody was paying attention to that virus in the city of Wuhan, when it was just getting a little bit of coverage, there was already a tremendous propaganda campaign in the alternative media, especially the anti-China alternative media, portraying the virus as having come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

In other words, it happened very early on. Radio Free Asia, which is one of America’s propaganda outlets, was talking about the virus having leaked from the Institute, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as early as January 6, before anybody else in the world was even paying attention to this disease, before a single person had died in the city of Wuhan. And that basically made me suspicious about why would there have been such a massive propaganda campaign targeting China and targeting the virus before almost anybody in the world was even paying attention to some obscure disease in the city of Wuhan, which most people had never heard of at all.

 

So early on, I started thinking that there are obviously two possibilities. The virus might be natural, or the virus might have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology the way some people were suggesting. But there was obviously a third possibility as well. At that point, the virus appeared in the city of Wuhan when America was at an extreme international confrontation with China over issues of trade, over issues of national security.

 

In other words, China and America were in a confrontation at that point in time. What then happened a few weeks later, …

 

[0:43:01]

 

Keith Woods: That was the time the Hong Kong protests were going on.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly.

 

Keith Woods: This is part of Covid as well.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. Hong Kong protests. And there’s a lot of suspicion that America, …

 

Keith Woods: Well I mean, they were definitely like, funded by the National Endowment.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly!

 

In other words, basically there were a lot of suspicions that the CIA or some of the American intelligence organizations were putting together the Hong Kong protests to basically cause trouble for China to disrupt China’s control over Hong Kong.

 

And again, I mean, that’s the sort of thing countries do all the time. But it seems to me that at that point in time, first of all, you’ve got to understand, I mean, China already had a larger, real economy than the United States. As far back as 2014, the Chinese economy was growing much more rapidly than the American economy, and it was larger in real terms and had been larger for a number of years. China was building up it’s military, and by all measures, all American national security experts agreed that China was America’s most formidable international rival down the road. And in the immediate terms, in other words, there was a feeling that Russia was weak, Russia was declining. America, anyway, had two to three times Russia’s population, a vastly larger economy than Russia.

 

So China was considered the future threat for the United States. And that’s actually why, for example, when Donald Trump became into office, one of his first actions was to take economic action against China.

 

In other words, saying, we have to reduce China’s economic strength. We have to cut our trade ties with China. We have to block, for example, China’s technological development. And America ended up kidnapping the chief financial officer of Huawei, restricting exports to Huawei, China’s most important technological company.

 

So, in other words, America was taking all these actions targeting China.

 

And so it just made me suspicious at the time that this mysterious viral epidemic breaks out in China at the point when America is most hostile to China.

 

And then a few other things came out, probably by about the end of January, I’d come across some other facts which I hadn’t been aware of at the time. First of all, the virus appeared in Wuhan probably towards the beginning of probably early November, possibly late October, but more likely early November.

 

Now, it turns out that was exactly when Wuhan was holding the international military game, the world military games, at that point in time. And there were 300 American military officers participating in those games in the city of Wuhan.

 

So just looking at it logically, if 300 Chinese military officers visited the city of Chicago in the United States, and immediately after they left, a mysterious viral epidemic suddenly broke out in the city of Chicago, it would certainly make people quite suspicious of what was going on.

 

I also found out that it turns out in the years 2018, there had been I probably should step back a little bit. This is stuff that basically I ended up working out five months, six months later, but really all ended up falling into place.

 

There’s a man, for example, named Robert Kadlec who for decades has been America’s leading biowarfare advocate. As far back as the 1990s, he was writing articles saying that biowarfare was the wave of the future. Biowarfare was the best means of severely damaging an international adversary and doing it in a plausibly deniable means, in other words, so that nobody could prove what was going on, a virus would appear in another country. And he pointed specifically at the use of viruses to damage the food supply and the economy of a geopolitical rival.

 

Now, it turns out Robert Kadlec was brought into the Trump administration in 2017. In 2018, China was suddenly hit by a mysterious viral epidemic that severely damaged it’s poultry industry.

 

Then in early 2019, right at the beginning of 2019, China was hit by another mysterious viral epidemic that wiped out 40% of China’s pig herds, the largest in the world and China’s primary meat source.

 

So, in other words, we have America basically elevating a top biowar for advocate to the Trump administration.

 

And then in the following two years.

 

[0:47:50]

 

Keith Woods: What position did you say he had?

 

Ron Unz: In the Trump administration? Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, which, strangely enough, that’s Fauci’s area, in other words, basically, he ended up being, he was basically put in as America’s chief biowarfare expert or something like that. He actually served a similar role in the George W Bush administration about 10 or 15 years earlier, but he was brought in in 2017 in the Trump administration.

 

And then in 2018 and, 20019, China’s food supply was suddenly hit by these mysterious viral epidemics, with some claims that the swine flu was being spread by small drones.

 

In other words, there were rumours in China, there were stories going around that drones were spreading the disease throughout the entire country.

 

And then in late 2019, suddenly the Covid virus appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Now the city of Wuhan, even though most Americans have not heard of it, it’s one of China’s leading transit hubs. It’s a city of 11 million, and it’s the place where many of the rail lines converge.

 

China has Lunar New Year holidays, which are the equivalent of Christmas, New Year’s, and several other holidays all rolled into one. During Lunar New Year 450,000,000 Chinese typically travel. In other words, they basically travel to their ancestral villages. They travel back home again if they’ve been working in cities. So it’s by far the biggest holiday for China. Now, the virus appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Keith Woods: That’s in February, right?

 

Ron Unz: Exactly, that’s basically January, February, late January, early February. The virus appeared in the city of Wuhan and then started growing exponentially. So since it was a new virus that nobody heard of I mean, the Chinese only discovered it’s existence on the last day of December in 2019, and the Chinese didn’t even realize that it was contagious until early January 2019.

 

Once it then began spreading in the city of Wuhan, the Chinese finally, then in mid to late January, ended up instituting a severe lockdown and managed to stamp it out. But if they waited just a couple of weeks, the virus then would have spread throughout the entire city of Wuhan. And Wuhan, being a transit hub it would have spread out throughout the entire country of China with probably tens or hundreds of millions of Chinese being infected. The result of that.

 

Keith Woods: I’m just sharing an image on screen there for the audience, just to illustrate what you said about the Wuhan as a transportation hub. You can see in the green is Wuhan, and it’s right in the middle of all of these lines that connect these major cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou and so on.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. Now, the whole thing about the virus, at first, nobody really knew how dangerous it was, and most of the evidence that come out later, obviously, it’s very much more dangerous to elderly people than younger people.

 

In other words, I think if you’re over 60, you have 100 times greater chance of dying than if you’re under 40. But overall, for the average American population, the death rate is something between 0.5 and 1%.

 

So in other words, we’re talking of a sort of bioweapon potentially that would not wipe out a population, but still it ended up killing about a million Americans.

 

So the result of that, if it had spread out throughout China, China would have to if tens of millions or hundreds of millions of Chinese have been infected, China then would have had to take tremendous economic measures, locking down the entire country to prevent millions upon millions of Chinese deaths. In a sense, China would have had to do, under those circumstances, very much what America end up doing once it’s spread back here. And so we would have seen tremendous disruption to Chinese society, disruption to the economy, as happened all around the world.

 

And so the point about it is probably the best way of looking at this type of virus, of these characteristics, is that it would have the characteristics of a very effective anti-economy bioweapon.

 

In other words, something that isn’t an anti-personnel weapon. It’s not intended to kill 30% or 50% or 70% of the population, but because it would be fatal to enough people, it would cause tremendous disruption in a society if it became widespread in that society.

 

So anyway, I’m jumping at it myself on some of that. But what I then ended up, as the pieces started coming together, one thing I discovered about a year later, which really was quite surprising, was, as I said, Robert Kadlec was America’s leading biowarfare advocate. And it turns out from January to August, 2019, he ran something called the Crimson Contagion Exercise, which was a federal state planning session, a series of exercises on how America would prevent leakage of a dangerous respiratory virus if such a virus were to appear in China.

 

So we’re talking about from January to August, 2019, America, under it’s chief biowarfare advocate, ran this massive planning exercises exercise to prepare itself for the appearance of a potentially dangerous Covid like virus in China. And such a virus then appeared in the city of Wuhan, just a couple of months later, which seems an awfully remarkable coincidence, if it were a coincidence.

 

Another factor which, …

 

Keith Woods: Can I just ask. I’m just imagining, like, someone that’s skeptical, listen to what they’d be then pushing back. Why did the US seem so kind of unprepared for the whole thing? It took a few months to even react, right?

 

[0:54:01]

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. America’s reaction was unbelievably incompetent.

 

I mean, the whole thing about it is not only that, but we botched the production of the CDC testing kit.

 

In other words, we did almost everything wrong. You can imagine the scenario I’m talking about, this sort of biowarfare scenario. The key factor to keep in mind is there’s absolutely no evidence that Donald Trump himself was at all aware of or involved of what was going on.

 

In fact, there’s tremendous evidence that he was absolutely not aware of what had happened. When the Covid virus started leaking back to the United States, and infecting people here, Trump basically said, oh, it wasn’t a problem, it would go away itself, people should ignore it, it wasn’t dangerous, that sort of thing.

 

So there’s absolutely no chance that he under my scenario, that he would have been aware of what had happened.

 

My argument is that it probably was an action taken by lower level officials in the Trump administration, probably a small hand.

 

Keith Woods: Wouldn’t they have foreseen that America won’t be prepared for this, and this will potentially do as much damage to the US?

 

Ron Unz: You see, part of it is that America dominates the world of propaganda.

 

In other words, America really dominates the world of media and propaganda. And one problem is you sometimes tend to believe your own propaganda.

 

Remember when the SARS epidemic, the original Coronavirus epidemic, suddenly appeared in China in 2002 and, 20003. It never spread much outside of China. It had a very high fatality rate, I think it was 20% or 30%.

 

So it was a very dangerous virus, but very few people outside of China were ever infected or died. It never spread to the United States, I don’t think. I think maybe one person died in the entire country. When the MERS epidemic, another Coronavirus suddenly appeared in the Middle East. I think it was 2007, 2008, something like that. It never much spread outside the Middle East, and not a single American ever died of MERS. So we had these two previous waves of Coronavirus infection, both of them natural.

 

In other words, they found the animal reservoir, neither of which had done any damage to the United States, it turns out. The National Health Organization, in late 2019, did a study on which countries in the world were best prepared to cope with any epidemic that might appear. Any dangerous epidemic. America was ranked number one. Britain was ranked number two.

 

In other words, all the West European countries were considered to have the best healthcare systems at coping with any epidemic of any sort that might appear. China was down around 50 or 60.

 

So in other words, anybody naively looking at all these international comparisons would have thought, well, SARS never got to the United States, MERS never got to the United States. The previous Coronavirus epidemics from the Middle East and from China had never done any damage to the United States. All the international bodies agree that America is best prepared at coping for any respiratory or other epidemic that might happen.

 

And so they might have believed that by organizing these exercises, eight months worth of planning for potentially dangerous Chinese virus that might appear that plus these other steps would basically safeguard America from any significant blowback. So it’s possible a few Americans would be infected, a few Americans would die, but by contrast, China potentially would be devastated.

 

In other words, hundreds of millions of Chinese might have been infected if the Chinese hadn’t reacted as quickly as they did.

 

And so the problem was the reality ended up being very different.

 

In other words, partly because of Trump’s basically unwillingness to confront the virus once it started leaking back into the United States, America basically just reacted very, very poorly.

 

And in fact, we had no idea how to cope with it.

 

In other words, our testing kits didn’t work. We refused to use the German testing kit that they’d already produced. And so for that reason, we had no idea what we do. And we ended up implementing lockdowns, then off and on for about a year or two, and then a controversial vaccination drive after that.

 

So the problem is, the scenario I’m talking about is not a scenario where America’s national security establishment as an organized body spent months or years planning and biowarfare attack against China.

 

The scenario I’m talking about is a small group of individuals, probably one or two of them near the top of the Trump administration, deciding to take this step without Trump being aware of it, without getting his authorization and simply deploying the resources, the lower level resources of the American national security establishment in this action, but without Trump or the top officials knowing what had happened.

 

[0:59:15]

 

And so, because Trump didn’t realize the virus was dangerous, he basically prevented any effective reaction once the virus unexpectedly leaked here and started infecting people. And there are a lot of other factors involved as well.

 

One early thing that made me extremely suspicious about the virus being more than it seemed was the fact that the second country in the world hit the hardest with Covid early on was Iran.

 

In other words, Iran became the second epicenter of the Covid world-wide outbreak, even though it has one of the lowest Chinese populations in the world.

 

In other words, only a few thousand Chinese people live in Iran, while the other countries that were fairly early, like, for example, northern Italy, has 300,000 Chinese living and working there, many of whom had returned from the Lunar New Year holidays and been infected and carried the infection there. Spain was another very country early infected. 150,000 Chinese live and work in Spain. So we had countries that basically had hundreds of thousands of Chinese, as you would expect, getting early infections with Covid because they got it from travels back to China.

 

And then you had the holy city of Qom, the centre of Iran’s political and religious establishment, becoming the epicenter of Iran’s Covid outbreak sooner than anyone, any other country in the world. And the infections hitting China’s political and religious elite. For example, 10% of Iran’s entire Parliament became infected by Covid before a single political figure anywhere else in the world had become infected. And that all happened.

 

In other words, if you trace back the pattern of infections in Iran, the first Iranians probably became infected just two or three weeks after America had assassinated Iran’s top military commander, general Kostam Suleimani.

 

So in other words, we have a situation where America assassinates Iran’s top military commander, and just a few weeks later, the Iranian political elites are infected with this mysterious virus, even though Iran has much less of a connection to China than most of these other countries that have not yet been infected. Not only that, but at the time all this was happening, I really was very surprised that nobody in the world noticed what was happening in Iran.

 

I mean, the fact that the Iranian infections had happened right after Iran’s top military commander had been assassinated and I couldn’t imagine why the Iranians hadn’t noticed what I noticed just by reading the newspapers. And then I found out a year later, not only did the Iranians accuse America of having launched a biowarfare attack against Iran and China, it was in all the Iranian newspapers. The Iranian political leaders accused them. They even filed a formal complaint with the United Nations accusing America of having launched a Covid biowarfare attack against Iran. But none of it was ever reported in the American media.

 

[1:02:21]

 

So in other words, it never got into the New York Times, it never got into the Washington Post, it never got into the Wall Street Journal.

 

So Americans were simply not aware of the fact that the Iranians were accusing America of having launched a biowarfare attack.

 

So we have a situation where basically the two countries in the world at that point in time that America was most hostile towards were China and Iran. And those were the two countries hit with this mysterious viral epidemic that had characteristics later argued obviously came from laboratory. And that’s actually something I should say from the beginning. I’m not somebody who is a trained virologist. I’m not a microbiologist. So I’ve generally stayed away from the science aspects of the issue, even though my background is in physics. Physics is not microbiology.

 

So the point about it is I can’t say whether the virus itself is natural or artificial. But there’s been a tremendous amount of evidence that’s come. Out over the last year or two. That the virus. That the characteristics of the virus, the genetic characteristics of the virus, the [word unclear] and cleavage sites. Other aspects of the virus are exactly the sort of thing you would expect to be produced in a laboratory and are very different than would defined in any of the other Coronaviruses that would be found in nature.

 

So, in other words, the individuals who are advocating the lab leak hypothesis are really making two separate points. They’re pointing to a tremendous amount of evidence that the virus was produced in a laboratory, the virus was a product of bioengineering, the virus did not come from nature.

 

And then they’re making the case that, well, if it came from a laboratory, well, there’s the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the city of Wuhan. That’s obviously a place that must have come from the problem is that there’s very, very little evidence that the virus either was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology or that there was any lab leak in that Institute.

 

For example, just to give an example, early on, there were all these claims made of, for example, people having gotten sick in the laboratory or the virus having spread earlier, but there’s really very little evidence for any of that.

 

And in fact, there have been some quite a lot of detailed examinations of the timing involved. And the timing really shows that virtually nobody in China was aware of any virus spreading until right towards the end of December, in other words, long after the virus had appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Furthermore, an Australian biologist named Danielle Anderson was actually working at the Wuhan Institute of Technology during the period in question. She was very friendly with the people. It’s a research Institute. It’s not a biowarfare lab or anything like that. And she specifically says she’s seen absolutely no sign that a virus of that type was being worked on in the laboratory, was being developed there. There were no indications of any lab leak having occurred, and she’s very skeptical of anything like that having happened.

 

Some Western journalists then interviewed a lot of the people at the laboratory, and there’s simply no indication that any of them were aware of anything going on, any sort of lab leak or anything like that.

 

Furthermore, when you look at the pattern of infections in the city of Wuhan, the pattern of infections is on the other side of the city from the Wuhan Institute of Technology.

 

So, in other words, if the virus had leaked out of the laboratory, you would expect at least some of the early infections to be in the vicinity of the laboratory. But instead, it’s about ten or 12 miles away on the other side of the river, centreed on the wet market that people were often talking about.

 

In other words, that’s clearly where the virus first appeared.

 

[1:06:22]

 

So we’re talking about a situation where there’s really quite a lot of scientific evidence and a lot of people who have great deal of expertise on the structure of viruses, on DNA issues say that the virus very clearly came from a laboratory, was bioengineered.

 

In fact, someone like, for example, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who was the chairman of the Lancet’s Covid Commission, he really became very suspicious that the people he’d put on the commission who were investigating the origins of the virus were simply covering up the fact that the virus was artificial rather than natural.

 

In fact, many of the early statements that have come out, you have all these experienced biologists saying what they looked at. The structure, the structure of the virus clearly came from a laboratory.

 

In other words, it’s not the sort of thing you would expect to come from nature. So essentially, there are three possibilities. There’s the natural scenario, the lab leak, accidental lab leak scenario, and the third scenario, which I think is by far the most likely, which is the deliberate biowarfare scenario.

 

Most advocates of the lab leak scenario spend their time and effort arguing that the virus was bioengineered in a laboratory, that it has characteristics, genetic characteristics of that sort, and they have very little evidence to supporting anything like a lab leak having happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

Most of the supporters of the natural virus theory focus on the fact that there’s very little evidence of a lab leak. And when you look at, for example, the spread of early infections, it’s on the other side of the city. There’s simply no evidence for any lab leak having occurred. And they tend to soft pedal the characteristics of the virus itself, which arguably seem quite likely to have been produced in a laboratory.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where if you look at the third scenario, which I think has the advantages of the other two, but none of the disadvantages, we’re talking about a situation where America is in a major confrontation with China and Iran, the two countries America is most hostile towards.

 

America has the oldest and largest biowarfare programme in the world. We’ve probably spent about $100 billion over the last 60 or 70 years on biowarfare, and suddenly a mysterious virus breaks out in China and Iran, hitting those countries right after America spent eight months in the Crimson Contagion Exercise, preparing itself for the possible appearance of a dangerous respiratory virus in China.

 

And so all of that, I think, is really quite strong evidence. But there’s one piece of evidence that really constitutes something closer to a smoking gun.

 

As I said, Donald Trump almost certainly had nothing to do with this.

 

And by the way, I should say that under normal circumstances, the notion of America or any major country launching a biowarfare attack against a leading international adversary without the leader of that country, without the President of the United States being aware of it, is utterly ridiculous. But the Trump administration was not a normal administration.

 

In other words, there were all these other things going on that were entirely kept away from Donald Trump.

 

In fact, some of the stories came out afterwards. Some of Donald Trump’s top aides would hide his own Executive Orders from his desk.

 

Keith Woods: I remember there was something published in the New York Times where it was like the headline was something like, I’m a member of the Deep State, and I’m sabotaging Trump’s administration plan to be a senior member.

 

Ron Unz: They just ignored him totally. Again, what I’m talking about in this case is a small group of individuals deciding that America has to strike a major blow against China, it’s greatest long term adversary, severely damaging the Chinese economy, maybe even causing the overthrow of the regime, and also probably striking Iran at the same time. And obviously, they really felt, well, Trump is not the sort of person to bring it into the loop on something like this.

 

So the fact that Trump was totally unaware of this meant that when the virus started leaking into the United States in the way that nobody really expected at the time, our reactions, trump basically told people to ignore it, pay no attention to it, forget about it. It would go away by itself. And so we ended up having a huge epidemic. By April, tens of thousands of Americans were becoming infected, and many of them were dying. It was spreading around the country. It was a gigantic disaster.

 

So for very obvious reasons, our intelligence agencies decided to try to explain to the public that they were not the ones responsible for this horrible disaster that potentially could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. And four separate intelligence sources went to ABC News and told them that the Defense Intelligence Agency, one of our leading intelligence agencies, had produced an intelligence report describing this potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan, had distributed to our top officials, had sent it to the White House and ignore it.

 

[1:11:46]

 

So in other words, the intelligence agencies were trying through the leak, through the leak to ABC News, to explaining that they had warned the government of what was going on. They had warned of this terrible epidemic taking place in the city of Wuhan and the danger of it spreading. And the government, the White House had just ignored the problem.

 

So it wasn’t the fault of the intelligence agencies. And basically, it’s exactly the sort of thing you would expect them to do they basically had a secret intelligence report.

 

Now, the truth is, probably many, many of these reports are constantly being produced, warning of all sorts of things going around the world.

 

And so it’s not too surprising that Trump paid no attention to it. But the key thing is, the date of the report was November. It was early November when the report was produced.

 

So, in other words, in early November, the Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a secret report describing a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before there was an outbreak in the city of Wuhan.

 

In other words, according to most of the current timelines, probably in early November, there might have been ten or 15 people who’d just gotten infected in the city of Wuhan and were starting to feel a little sick. In a city of 11 million, there’s no way the Defense Intelligence Agency or any outside source could have been aware of what was happening at that time.

 

So that, in effect, was a smoking gun of foreign knowledge of the events. Now, as you can imagine, the Pentagon immediately denied the existence of the report, even though four separate intelligence sources had confirmed the fact that the report existed when they leaked it to ABC News. And it had been reported by the top people at ABC, the Pentagon, when they realized they were talking about November, that the report had been produced in November, they claimed the report had never existed.

 

But then a week later, Israeli TV reported the fact that naturally the report existed. The report had been sent to Israel, the report had been sent to all of our NATO allies, the report certainly existed, and the report had been produced in the second week of November.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where the Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a secret report distributed to our NATO allies, to Israel, and to our top government officials about a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before any significant number of people have been infected. And that is exactly the sort of thing that I think demonstrates foreknowledge, again confirmed, …

 

[1:14:27]

 

Keith Woods: Just for the people watching what should people search just to find that specific report, because an interest in the report?

 

Ron Unz: No copy of the report was ever actually leaked.

 

In other words, we don’t have a copy of the report, but it was reported by four sources to ABC News and then separately confirmed by Israel that it was sent to Israel and our NATO allies. And they describe the report and that sort of thing. It’s in my articles, and in fact, there’s sort of a summary that provides links to the ABC News story and the Israeli TV news story that explain the nature of the report.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where if you have foreknowledge of something like that, it’s very, very difficult to explain that unless at least some people in the American government were aware of the disease outbreak before anybody in China.

 

In other words, there’s absolutely no evidence that anybody in China and the Chinese government was aware of the virus invisibly spreading in the city of Wuhan until right towards the end of December, six or seven weeks after the American Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report talking about this potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan.

 

So when you’re talking about something like that, again, that is basically the hard information we have. We have these news stories. ABC News, the New York Times reported the Crimson Contagion Exercise that went on for eight months right prior to the appearance of the virus.

 

The scenario, I think that’s most plausible to explain that evidence is, again, a small group of officials, probably one or two of whom might have been near the top of the Trump administration, decided to deal a severe blow to our Chinese and Iranian adversaries using an anti-economy bioweapon of the sort releasing in Wuhan and then separately releasing in the whole city of Qom, infecting them and damaging them.

 

And then they probably then notified individuals in the Defense Intelligence Agency saying that they had some intelligence report about some disease epidemic in the city of Wuhan.

 

In other words, it’s not at all clear whether anybody who produced the report in the Defense Intelligence Agency would have been aware of what I believe was an American biowarfare attack against China. It’s simply that they would have then been leaked intelligence probably by some of the conspirators.

 

Keith Woods: Wouldn’t you expect China to be aware of this, China’s own intelligence agencies and so on? And would you have expected them to go public with this?

 

Ron Unz: That’s the whole thing.

 

In other words, the Chinese, early in 2020, in February and March 2020, started making some accusations towards the United States.

 

In other words, they basically claimed the virus had been brought to China, probably by American participants in the Wuhan war exercises.

 

Keith Woods: They haven’t been disclaimed?

 

Ron Unz: Again, they’ve never specifically accused America of a biowarfare attack.

 

In other words, they’ve claimed America probably brought the virus to China, without specifying the circumstances. And I think probably part of it is there’s no proof.

 

In other words, it’s not that the Chinese or anybody else has proof. America dominates the world media. And so if the Chinese made accusations, people would say, well, where’s your proof? And they wouldn’t really have any proof.

 

In other words, what I’ve explained right here is, I think, a lot of strong evidence in favour of this scenario, but it’s not hard proof.

 

In other words, there’s absolutely no hard proof. It’s not like we have a confession by any of the participants of the world military games or anything like that. And the other thing to remember is the Iranians did specifically accuse America of a biowarfare attack. Their media reported, the top leaders reported it. Nothing happened.

 

In other words, the world media, which is under the control of the West, totally ignored the Iranian accusations and it did them no good at all.

 

Keith Woods: Arguably the US, just after killing Soleimani. You’d imagine Iran would maybe accuse the US of being involved regardless, right?

 

Ron Unz: Well, that’s actually one reason they did it, is because the timing. In other words, the fact that the disease outbreak hit the Iranian political elites like three weeks after we’d assassinated their top military commander. I mean that sort of coincidence is just so amazingly strong. I mean, you know, the whole thing is the fact that the virus allegedly jumped 4,000 or 5,000 miles from the city of Wuhan in China, all the way to the holy city of Qom in Iran, which has almost no Chinese population, was just a very implausible thing.

 

And so the Iranians naturally put two and two together and accused America, but again, they didn’t have any proof.

 

Another thing I should mention is back, …

 

[1:19:28]

 

Keith Woods: You think there would have been a separate leak done by the US in Iran?

 

Ron Unz: Yeah.

 

In other words, there’s no way. It’s very unlikely it would have suddenly jumped thousands of miles to a city with almost no Chinese population. It’s possible, …

 

Keith Woods: I guess maybe one objection is you said like previous SARS viruses, like they didn’t leave China so the people conspiring this would have thought, well, this will do damage to China, but we won’t really have to worry about it. But if they were looking at the Covid virus specifically, what seems to make it unique is how contagious it is and how easily it spreads.

 

And even in January 2020, there were people saying like, restrictions lockdowns, that would all be pointless because the way this virus functions, there’s basically nothing we can do except let it spread. It’s too contagious to do anything about.

 

So the theoretical people planning this, would that not have factored in that, well, this is so contagious that it would be impossible to confine it to China and Iran and the whole West is going to have to deal with it.

 

Ron Unz: It obviously ended up being a total disaster. What you’re saying is exactly what happened. But remember the scenario.

 

Keith Woods: So you think they probably didn’t take exactly how the virus would, …

 

Ron Unz: Well, the whole thing about it is the scenario I’m talking about is typically when a government like the United States might consider an action like this, it probably would go through 20 levels of planning stages.

 

In other words, we’re talking about a huge number of different individuals being brought into setting up the procedures for something like that, going through all these different possibilities.

 

The scenario I’m talking about was basically a rogue operation run by probably a small group of conspirators in the Trump administration. Since it was a rogue operation that was kept away from Trump himself and kept away from most of other top officials, they couldn’t have basically had all these planning sessions. It was probably just a small group of people who really ran the thing more in a seat of the pants operation.

 

In other words, basically they assumed that some of these defensive measures like the Crimson Contagion Exercise, the fact that the SARS virus hadn’t spread, the fact that the DIA secret report would warn of the epidemic taking place in Wuhan. They probably believe that the combination of those factors and America’s outstanding public health system ranked internationally as the best in the world at coping with any epidemic.

 

Keith Woods: When you say elements of the Trump administrator, are you mentioning something like a John Bolton type figure that’s working with elements of the CIA?

 

Ron Unz: Probably the two most likely suspects.

 

And again, there’s no way of telling who would have been involved under my scenario, but the two most likely suspects, I think, would probably be Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State who’d previously been head of the CIA, or John Bolton, the National Security adviser. They were both ferociously anti-China. They were the leaders.

 

Keith Woods: Pompeo was very bullish, very against China, I think. Wasn’t he head of the CIA when the Hong Kong protest. There’s a suggestion that he may have been heavily involved there.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. And for example, and John Bolton, by some accounts, John Bolton, we basically ended up kidnapping the CFO of Huawei, the daughter of the founder, when she was changing planes in a Canadian airport, and we ended up holding her for about a year, a year and a half.

 

I mean, it really almost caused a complete rupture with China. Allegedly, John Bolton ordered that, the seizure of a top Chinese business leader without informing Donald Trump.

 

In fact, the story came out about six months ago. Donald Trump afterwards said, but you arrested somebody who’s like the equivalent of my daughter in China. Why did you do that? And Bolton basically had done it without Trump’s permission.

 

So when things like that happen, when America basically arrests one of China’s top executives and potentially imprisons her for 20 years in the United States and it’s done by John Bolton, without informing Donald Trump of what he’s doing.

 

I mean, that’s exactly the scenario I’m talking about, where you had Pompeo and Bolton, either of them being senior enough to have organized something like this with a small group of conspirators around them.

 

In other words, their aides, their assistants. But I think probably someone like that could have arranged something like this. And the whole thing about it is, from their point of view, Trump, they probably regarded as being they probably didn’t want to take the risk of raising this sort of possibility with someone like Trump and just basically deal a severe blow to China and Iran without Trump knowing about it.

 

And then, obviously, once it ended up being a gigantic disaster and a million Americans died as a consequence, with two years worth of lockdowns, with all the controversies over vaccines under that scenario, obviously the people involved would be very concerned about anybody being becoming aware of what happened.

 

[1:24:48]

 

Keith Woods: All right, just one other question, because I just imagined the other thing that the audience would maybe be skeptical of is how useful Covid would even be as means of economic warfare. I’m sure people will say, well, it only really killed people that were very elderly or had underlying conditions. And even if the Chinese didn’t deal with it with severe lockdowns or whatever, they could probably more or less get on with business as usual. That is kind of the, I think, sort of dominant consensus on Covid. Now, it’s maybe worse than the common cold, but not as serious as was originally taught when it entered the West?

 

Ron Unz: Right. Well, you’ve got to remember, right now we’re talking about the Omicron version of Covid which is much milder than the original Wuhan version. Also, at the time the virus first appeared, nobody would be sure about the fatality rate.

 

In other words, remember, the original SARS that appeared in China had, I think, something like a 15% fatality rate. And early on in the first few weeks, there were all these rumours going around that the virus was extremely deadly.

 

So, in other words, if you’re the Chinese government, and if you have a massive spread of this virus throughout your country and you don’t know anything about the fatality rate, you don’t know that it would generally be targeting only the elderly. You couldn’t take any risks.

 

So, in other words, if the virus had spread throughout the entire country, probably 10 or 15 million Chinese would have died.

 

In other words, the original version of the virus probably had a 0.5% to 1% fatality rate. China has 1.4 billion people.

 

So if you multiply it out, I mean, we’re talking about many, many millions or even tens of millions of deaths in the country, plus a complete collapse of the Chinese healthcare system because it wouldn’t only be the people who would be dying, but the people who would be very sick for a period of a few weeks.

 

And also, the thing about China is China is a country that is much more respectful of its elderly.

 

So, in other words, a disease that would kill a large fraction of their people in their 70s or 80s might be treated even as a greater risk than something in the West, where there isn’t as much respect for elderly, including, for example, the party leaders in China.

 

So the whole thing about it is I’m not saying, for example, that the virus involved necessarily would have wiped out China’s entire population, but it probably was sufficiently contagious and sufficiently deadly that a country like China would have had to take very strong lockdown measures to control it. And if hundreds of millions of Chinese had been infected, it would have had a devastating impact on Chinese society.

 

The interesting thing about it is there was actually a 40 year veteran of American biowarfare who ended up writing a number of pieces on the Internet. And I ended up checking into his background, and it looks like he probably is exactly what he claimed to be. And he really was arguing it was basically in January when I came across some of his statements. He argued that the ideal sort of anti-economy bioweapon is something with a low fatality rate, but a very high rate of contagion.

 

In other words, something that was very infectious but had low fatality rates would tremendously disrupt a society.

 

In other words, if you had something, for example, that would simply kill 10% of the population, it probably would do less damage to a society than something that would infect 80%, 70 or 80% of the population. Even if only made the people sick and only killed a small fraction of them, it would tremendously disrupt a society.

 

So the point about is if the original Covid virus had spread around China, killed many, many millions or even tens of millions of Chinese and devastated the country, you could easily imagine the result would be a collapse of order in China.

 

In other words, people would blame the government for having failed in its mission to protect them. I mean, just like for example, look at all the incredible anger there’s been in the West over the fact that the governments have fallen down on the job with regard to the lockdowns, with regard to all these other policies.

 

So the point about it is, again, it wasn’t designed to be 100% effective at destroying China, but it was probably felt by the people involved that it would have a good chance of dealing a severe body blow to China, damaging the Chinese economy, damaging Chinese society and destroying much of the political legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party, which it probably would have if they hadn’t reacted as effectively as they did.

 

Because remember, even in the last six months, or a year, there’s been a lot of growing resentment in China towards the endless lockdowns to control the virus. And that’s despite the fact that the West and the rest of the world had suffered much more severely over the last couple of years than China did.

 

So in other words, there was some loss of legitimacy in the Chinese government even under the circumstances where 20 million people have died around the world with almost nobody dying in China until very recently.

 

So the whole point about bioweapons, as Robert Kadlec had written back in the 1990s, they’re a plausibly deniable means of severely damaging an international adversary.

 

In other words, there’s no proof America had attacked China or Iran or any of these other countries with bioweapons.

 

And so there’s nothing really the Chinese or the Iranians could say internationally that the global media which America controls would take seriously.

 

Well, one other point I should make is about six or eight months ago, the Russian general in charge of biological warfare held a press conference focused on the biolabs, whatever the 20 or 30 biolabs that Russia claims to have found in Ukraine. Biological warfare labs that he claimed were preparing biological attacks on Russia. And he actually specifically accused America of having released Covid as a biowarfare attack against the rest of the world, especially China and Iran.

 

And again, it got almost no attention in the American media. So probably very few Americans are aware of the fact that the Russian government has now officially accused America of having released Covid as a biowarfare.

 

So we’re talking about the Iranian government, the Russian government, and to some extent the Chinese government have all pointed the finger of blame at the United States. But since none of it is ever reported in a serious way in the American media or the Western media, probably very few Westerners are even aware of it.

 

[1:31:53]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, it’s a very interesting theory. I mean, like you said, there’ll probably never be a smoking gun. We’ll probably never know for sure. But I think out of the three plausible theories that you laid out, I think that probably is the most plausible in terms of fitting with the facts and explaining things.

 

Ron Unz: It’s partly, I’d say it’s the process of elimination.

 

In other words, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that the Covid virus was bioengineered in a laboratory.

 

So the natural theory goes out the window.

 

And also they’ve never found an animal reservoir.

 

If it came from a laboratory. The two possibilities are the Wuhan lab that leaked out or the sort of biowarfare scenario I’m talking about. And the problem is there’s just no evidence of a Wuhan lab leak. And there seems to be a lot of other evidence that elements of the American national security establishment were aware of the viral epidemic before it happened.

 

So I think the combination of those two things is strong enough that it’s the sort of thing if the American media or even the alternative media began reporting the story, in other words, if it got almost any coverage at all, it could be facts would be shaken loose. But virtually all the coverage, probably 99% of all the discussion has either been natural virus or lab leak. And nobody is focused on any of this other evidence, even though it comes from mainstream media sources.

 

Keith Woods: Now, another thing you’ve been writing about recently, which I shared to my Telegram because obviously this has been hot topic of discussion the last few months is the topic of excess deaths. And I don’t know if I can even see that says the V [vaccine] word on YouTube. The terms are so ridiculous but related to medical treatments broadly for Covid.

 

But you’re one of the few people I’ve seen in the kind of brother Alt media sphere that kind of actually took a hard look at this and broke it down by demographics, by vaccination status, by country, by obesity and health status. And yeah, they’re very interested in the articles. People complain to me a lot that I don’t talk enough about the topic of side effects and excess deaths.

 

But honestly, it’s like the only pushback I’ve really seen from the stuff you’ve presented is kind of a lot of anecdotal evidence. There’s a lot of articles of people dying from heart attacks, young people. The problem with that is it seems like if you had Covid, you’re seven times more likely to get myocarditis from the vaccine. Obviously, those numbers could be wrong, but still, in a time when a lot of people have had Covid, which does affect the heart, you would expect there’d be more myocarditis.

 

I mean, that’s the only thing I noticed from having Covid myself that was different from any regular flu, is I was getting like, very sharp heart pains, which was a pretty weird experience. But yeah, we know it affects the heart.

 

But anyway, the basis of your article is you broke it down and showed that although there are a lot of excess deaths in the US, the UK, some other countries, if you break it down by the working age population, a lot of countries actually have a mortality deficit. They have less than what would be the expected number of deaths.

 

And there’s a few interesting things to come out of your article. I’ll pull it up in a second while you’re talking. I should have had already. But yeah, there’s a few interesting things to come out of me.

 

One thing is that there’s no real correlation that can be established between the vaccine rollout and the excess deaths. Like, a lot of countries that’s pointed to they had excess deaths prior to the vaccine rollout, and then they have mortality deficit after.

 

Countries that have low vaccine rollout, like Bulgaria, I think it only has like, 34% uptake of vaccines. They have much higher excess deaths than some countries that have very higher vaccine rollout. There’s countries with almost 100% that have mortality deficits.

 

So the long and the short of it is there isn’t any direct correlation you can establish based on the numbers between vaccine status and deaths, even if there’s a lot of stories of a lot of people dying right now that’s being shared around.

 

And the other thing was the obesity element that you analyzed. So trying to find an explanation, you broke it down by obesity and well, maybe I’ll let you explain that aspect of it.

 

[1:36:30]

 

Ron Unz: Sure. What I focused on is the single most important factor that gives you a high risk of dying from Covid is your age.

 

In other words, elderly people have a vastly greater chance of dying of Covid than younger people. I think it’s probably if you’re over 60, you have 100 times higher chance of dying than if you’re under 40.

 

So the point is, when you’re looking at individual countries and seeing, for example, what the pattern is with vaccinations or with Covid deaths, excess deaths, it’s probably better to focus on the working age population. People who are I think the figure is generally from about 16 to about 60, 16 to about 64 in that age range. So that you’re sort of getting out of the fact that some countries have much higher elderly populations than other countries.

 

And then when I simply looked at those countries, I saw America had probably the highest rate of excess deaths of any country in the working age population. And strangely enough, the other countries with very high excess deaths were not the ones you’d sort of imagine.

 

In other words, basically, Canada, which had very different has a very different political system than the United States had very high excess deaths as well. Britain had high excess deaths. A few other countries did as well. While in the other countries, like Sweden or Denmark or the Netherlands had relatively low excess deaths. And the pattern seemed to be, more than anything else, it was due to obesity.

 

In other words, if you look at the charts of national obesity, those countries that have the highest rate of national obesity seem to have the highest rate of working age excess deaths. Which isn’t that surprising, because we know that Covid is much more dangerous to people who have weight problems, people who are obese than people who are thin or average weight.

 

So, in other words, it seemed to me that rather than looking at any patterns of vaccinations, or even the particular type of vaccination, the obesity factor was by far the most important element in determining the death rate, the excess death rate for working age populations. And when we’re talking about working age populations, excess deaths, we don’t have to worry about the fact of whether we’re talking about what they died, whether they died with Covid or whether they died from Covid. We’re simply talking about the total number of deaths in that country relative to deaths under normal circumstances for the few years before.

 

And so it seems to me that a lot of these concerns about vaccinations, I think, to be honest, are sort of misguided, or possibly due to the fact that in the United States we’ve had such a high rate of excess deaths. And the government the fact that the government and media in the United States has sacrificed the trust of so many Americans.

 

In other words, it’s been so dishonest about so many things for so many years that there’s naturally a sizable fraction of the American population that immediately becomes suspicious about anything the government or the authority or the media say on anything.

 

And so it seems to me that probably the obesity factor, just by looking at about 15 or 20 or 30 different countries, was the biggest factor in how much negative impact Covid had, how many people Covid killed outside of the elderly range.

 

Keith Woods: Now, one thing is, how is the expected deaths being calculated? Because for the countries that have a mortality deficit, this is something I’ve heard before for some of these projections is the expected deaths is based on the number of annual deaths from the past five years. Obviously, the past two, three years includes Covid itself. So maybe that expected number of deaths is higher than it should be, and then you get mortality deficit, but maybe you still have some excess deaths in there. Is that accounted for or how is, …

 

[1:40:36]

 

Ron Unz: There are lots of different ways of doing it.

 

So, in other words, every individual person can use the benchmark for excess deaths that they want. The one I was using was the simplest one possible.

 

In other words, in all of these countries, I just took the average deaths for the five previous years prior to the Covid epidemic, average prior to the Covid and comparing it now, that’s certainly not perfect.

 

In other words, for example, in some of these countries, there had been a steadily rising death rate over those five years.

 

And so it might be better to use, for example, a linear interpolation method or something like that. But the simplest possible method you can use is simply to average the deaths over the previous five years and compare it to the deaths for the last three years of the Covid epidemic. And that’s basically what I use in most of those countries.

 

Keith Woods: So, for example, I’m just sharing an image from the article you wrote.

 

So this is the US for 2022, ages 15 to 64, and orange is to say that there’s excess mortality.

 

So you can see it actually declines a little bit as the year goes on in 2022, which yeah, I don’t know what you make of that specifically, but I’ll pull up another one you included, which is the rate for France, where there’s actually a mortality deficit, like we said.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly.

 

Keith Woods: Yes, you can see that the blue is a mortality deficit.

 

So there’s actually less deaths than you would expect based on the five years prior to Covid.

 

Ron Unz: Right. And I mean, to some extent, we’re talking about, remember working age people where the death rate is normally very low with the lockdowns most of these countries had, the result was that, for example, regular illnesses like the ordinary flu was stamped out because of the lockdowns.

 

And also you had, for example, a decline generally in traffic accidents because fewer people were driving, factors like that. So it depends country by country. And I’m certainly not saying the differences are necessarily as enormous as those two tables there.

 

But when you’re looking at 30 or 40 different countries, each of them over three or four years, and the pattern seems very clear, that the ones with excess mortality in the working age population are the ones that have the highest obesity rates in the world charts that points towards obesity as being a very large factor. And it’s sort of interesting.

 

One thing I hadn’t realized is that for some reason, the countries in the Anglo sphere the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain tend to have much higher obesity rates than most of the other Western countries. I don’t know exactly why. Maybe it’s Western advertising, American advertising or something like that. But for example, you have much lower levels of obesity in the continent or in the Scandinavian countries than you do, for example, in Australia or Canada or Britain, and that seems to be the closest, the most important factor with excess deaths with Covid.

 

Keith Woods: Another thing I could think of in terms of trying to sort of steelman the other position of people we listen to this is could you say, okay, so we see some countries have a mortality deficit, but if we had two, three years of Covid couldn’t you say, like, Covid wiped out the low hanging fruit? In a sense, like it killed a lot of people.

 

And so then there are people that maybe would have died in 2022 or 23, but now they’re already dead. So then, basically, if you have a couple of years where there’s a lot of excess deaths and people with underlying conditions and overweight people are dying, then you’d expect that a couple of years after that, you’ll have a lot less excess deaths because, like I said, the kind of low hanging fruit is gone. So is that something you’re factored in? Because then maybe you could still have excess deaths against what you’d actually expect if you factor that in.

 

But if you compare it to the five years prior to Covid, it looked like a mortality deficit.

 

Ron Unz: Right. But what’s interesting is many of those countries had deficit mortality from the beginning of the Covid epidemic.

 

In other words, the deficit mortality began in 2020 and it continued in 2021 and, 20022.

 

So, in other words, there was no increase in deaths during the period of those years, despite the fact that, for example, many of them had very heavy vaccination drives.

 

Another example, which I focused on later in a later article, was that probably the country in the world that had the highest elderly population, the highest percentage of elderly population was actually Japan.

 

In other words, Japan had a much larger elderly population relative to its overall size than any other country in the world. I think 50% larger percentage or twice as large as any as the next most country in the world. So you’d expect a very high rate of Covid deaths in Japan for that reason. Also, Japan then had one of the world’s most extreme vaccination drives.

 

In other words, there was probably more vaccine in Japan than almost any other country around the world. And the result was Japan basically had relatively low mortality rates compared to most other countries.

 

So, in other words, when a country with a high elderly population that follows a very heavy vaccine schedule with boosting and vaccine still has relatively low deaths, to me, that’s evidence that the vaccinations aren’t nearly as dangerous as some people say.

 

[1:46:16]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I encourage everyone watching again to go and check out the archives. If you just search Ron on American Pravda, you’ll find the archive there. And I think that the Covid ones are all included in that because I’m sure a lot of the audience will be very triggered by that take, but I’d invite them to try and go through your article and disprove it because I tried to sort of steelman that position. But they’re the two objections that I could think of but you’ve dealt with them. And I really think what you presented in terms of cross analyzing the data is pretty solid.

 

But I guess that gets us to another question, actually, which again relates to another one of your articles, which I really liked, which is I think it’s called Alex Jones Cass Sunstein and Cognitive Infiltration. It’s something like that. I shared on my Telegram a while back. But it relates to the phenomenon of conspiracy theories, and obviously neither of us are blanket against conspiracy theories.

 

I mean, if people look at the American Bravo series, right, you have alternative texts on 9/11 and JFK, and your Covid theory and a host of other things. But you did analyze this phenomenon, which is interesting, the idea of cognitive infiltration. That there was this advisor to Barack Obama, Cass Sunstein, that wrote a paper where he talked about flooding the discourse of conspiracy theories to kind of introduce bad or ridiculous theories to kind of discredit anti-government narratives. It was actually Michael Collins Piper that talked about this a lot. You cited one of his books.

 

You thought an example of this was like the Sandy Hook thing, the narrative of crisis actors, which is a narrative that’s kind of persisted. I’ve seen that for other events like that since.

 

But maybe an obvious example people could think of is like some of the ridiculous theories that went around about 9/11. Like, that there was no planes, that there were holograms or missiles or something. But yeah, just a lot of very bad, very weird conspiracies related to 9/11.

 

I’m just curious because you’re obviously pushing this theory about the origins of Covid but at the same time, there’s been a lot of, I think, very bad, very weird conspiracies that have popped up on the Right since the origin of Covid And it seems like it kind of shifted the Right into a much more sort of conspiratorial frame. Like suddenly this old sort of Birch Society narrative about the UN controlling the world or Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates implementing global communism. This was like the very popular new frame among the Right. I’m kind of surprised in how mainstream it’s gone in terms of establishment. Conservatives talk about that kind of thing now, but you’re obviously pushing a theory about the origins of Covid.

 

But then you have theories out there. Covid doesn’t exist. There was these weird, like 5G theories I remember back in 2020, actually, I remember those few months. It was a weird time in terms of all the I almost forget about some of them, but like the 5G theory that there was nanobots going to be activated by 5G towers, all this kind of stuff.

 

So, yeah, I’m just curious. Do you think that was a case of what you described with the cognitive infiltration and flooding the zone with bad narratives. Do you think we’re seeing a lot of that on the Right?

 

[1:49:48]

 

Ron Unz: I think that’s very possible.

 

In other words, if you’re trying to basically hide something that is as serious as the scenario I’m talking about, one way of doing it is obviously just as you’re saying, to sort of flood the zone with a proliferation of every possible conspiracy theory so as to distract people, have them wandering off in different directions.

 

I mean, the strange thing about it is, in nearly all ways, my Covid scenario is actually a very mainstream establishment sort of scenario.

 

In other words, almost everything I’m saying about Covid is pretty much what you’d find in the New York times or most of these other publications, with the one exception being that it was an American biowarfare attack.

 

Now, the fact that America spent probably $100 billion on its biowarfare infrastructure over the last 60 or 70 years, the fact that we have the world’s largest biowarfare program, the fact that it’s the oldest biowarfare program, the fact that, again, it’s been giving out money through the Eco Health Alliance and all these other groups monitoring bio facilities around the world. I mean, all that is stuff you can just read in the New York times.

 

And the one element that is never discussed in the mainstream media is the possibility that elements of the American government might have used that biowarfare infrastructure.

 

And the truth is, when a mysterious, dangerous virus suddenly appears in the two countries that America is most hostile towards.

 

I mean, it’s not all that irrational to start wondering whether it might have been an American biowarfare attack. And when you start looking at the facts, I mean, one reason I’ve often said people are so reluctant even to raise this possible issue is because once they do, the pattern is so clear, the evidence is so strong.

 

I mean, the fact that basically the top Iranian leadership was infected with Covid in the holy city of Qom just a few weeks after we’d assassinated their top military commander.

 

I mean, that’s an awfully remarkable coincidence! And when all of these factors are brought into play, I think probably people would fairly quickly decide it’s at least as plausible as the other scenarios that they’ve been discussing.

 

So the problem is, once you sort of open the door, I think you’ll have a lot of people starting to ask themselves whether a million Americans died and we had years worth of lockdowns because of the blowback from a botched American biowarfare attack. And when you’re talking about, for example, Americans.

 

I mean, the suffering Americans underwent, I mean, probably the Covid epidemic, including everything about it, all the lockdowns, the deaths, the controversy over the vaccines, everything like that this is the worst disaster to hit the United States since the Great Depression. I mean, huge numbers of deaths huge amount of inconvenience. Our entire economy was disrupted.

 

And the fact that there’s a very real possibility it was because of a botched American biowarfare attack is probably almost too horrifying for most Americans to even contemplate. But we really have to ask ourselves, why did we get ourselves into the situation?

 

In other words, America’s biowarfare facilities had already gotten back in the 19, I think it was around 1968 or 1969, there was a famous case of a nerve gas facility in Utah that leaked and it killed 5000 sheep. If the wind had blown in a different direction, the nerve gas would have probably devastated Salt Lake City, Utah, and probably killed tens of thousands of Americans. For that reason, Richard Nixon, president Richard Nixon a year or two later, ended up announcing that we were terminating, we were abandoning our biowarfare facilities, and we signed on to international conventions to ban biowarfare. So in theory, biowarfare has been banned all these years, but it’s been brought in through the back door under the grounds of biodefense.

 

In other words, there’s really no difference between biodefense and biowarfare.

 

In other words, the argument is you produce all these dangerous viruses so that you can better defend against them. And the problem is whether it’s a lab leak or whether it’s something else. I mean, we’ve now had probably 20 million people around the world die from the impact of Covid. And if Covid had been more dangerous, if it had mutated in a more dangerous rather than a less dangerous direction, we could have had many, many tens of millions of deaths around the world.

 

So I just think it’s just unconscionable that neither the media, neither the mainstream media, nor even almost any of the alternative media until very recently has been willing to look at the facts regarding the Covid outbreak and the evidence that I’ve been writing about now for three years.

 

One thing I should say is, in the last few months I’ve been very impressed with the work that’s been done by the Daily Skeptic, which is a British alternative newspaper, alternative media outlet focused on Covid. They’ve really had a series, the editor has had a series of very good articles going through a lot of these issues, connecting up the dots, and I’d certainly recommend them very much.

 

But, I mean, the point is, aside from The Daily Skeptic and aside from the work that I’ve done, a very small number of people here or there, almost all of the alternative media has been very unwilling to look at the reality of what probably happened.

 

And now that, for example, the Covid epidemic is winding down now, I think to some extent, probably the controversy over the health measures taken to control it are subsiding. I think it’s much more important that people go back and ask how this disaster happened, especially with some of the hearings that the Republicans are now having in the House about the efforts that were made on the part of Fauci and others to basically start developing some of these dangerous viruses and do some of the bioengineering that could have led to the creation of Covid.

 

[1:56:04]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, just on the topic more broadly of China and the US. We can get to the Superchats after this topic, but I guess this relates to the whole cognitive infiltration thing. You do observe this dynamic with the old media is very anti-China and the CCP, and they’ll often have a narrative like the mainstream media or the US Government is actually like pro-China, like we’re the anti-China ones. And you just get some utterly bizarre narratives, like the balloon thing recently that Biden is passing secrets to the Chinese, and he’s also letting them fly a massive spy balloon over the US. And all this kind of thing.

 

But, yeah, it does work. I mean, you get these conservative Right-wing types that are very skeptical of the mainstream media, very skeptical of the government.

 

But then their take on the sort of neocon push for war with China, it’s like the government isn’t saber rattling enough with China. They’re too soft on the CCP.

 

I’m just curious where you see that going, because you see Tucker Carlson now, he’s been a figure that’s been, you know, very good in terms of pushing a lot of populist talking points and pushing back on. He’s one of the few people to push back on the US involvement in war in Ukraine, and he platforms a lot of anti-war voices, but he’s getting very aggressive in his rhetoric on China. And this whole narrative has shifted to, like, we need to withdraw from Ukraine so that we can fight China over Taiwan, this kind of thing. He has these people like Eldridge Colby on that are very hawkish on China.

 

I’m just curious how you see that playing out.

 

I mean, that’s a very big question to ask you, but in terms of, would the US be willing to go to war over Taiwan? And maybe more importantly, do you think the US is capable of reforming itself to be able to fight China, or is there just too much ideological hubris there? You’ve mentioned that to an extent already.

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, the whole thing about it is for the last 30 years, America has reigned as the sole superpower on the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And for 60 years or 70 years, we’ve done our best to try to make sure that we prevented China and Russia from moving together.

 

In other words, basically, that was Richard Nixon’s great success, and it was followed by the people who came afterwards.

 

In other words, the fact that we were able to become, in effect, a quasi ally of China was one of the reasons we won the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

 

The one thing no geopolitical strategist in all of modern American history has ever considered is that any group of American leaders would be stupid enough to push China and Russia together again. And that’s exactly what we’ve done over the last couple of years.

 

In other words, we basically are almost at the verge of war with Russia right now over Ukraine. I mean, basically we are. I mean, NATO is more or less at war with Russia on Russia’s own border, which is an extremely dangerous situation. At the same time, we’re saber rattling towards China.

 

So the inevitable result, basically, we’ve pulled back on our agreement. Since Richard Nixon opened the door to China, we’ve always agreed that Taiwan is part of China, the One China policy. That was the pillar of our diplomatic relationship with China, and we’re not pulling back from that.

 

So what we’ve done is do everything we can to alienate both China and Russia at the same time and drive them together, which is exactly what happened a few days ago, the meeting in Moscow between the leaders of the two countries. We’ve also pushed Iran into that same camp, and most recently, we’ve even pushed Saudi Arabia into that camp. Even Saudi Arabia.

 

Keith Woods: That was very interesting, a deal brokered by China with Iran.

 

[2:00:20]

 

Ron Unz: It’s an incredibly important development! I mean, basically it means we’ve lost our strength in the Middle East.

 

I mean, Iran and Saudi Arabia re-established diplomatic relations after decades of hostility through the good auspices of China and the Chinese diplomats in Beijing. I mean, Saudi Arabia has been our most important Arab ally since Franklin Roosevelt met with them, I think, in 1944 and 1945.

 

So, I mean, we’re talking about 70 years of an alliance that we’ve now thrown away. And Saudi Arabia and Russia are two of the leading oil exporters in the world.

 

I mean, the two of them together, largely together with Iran, largely control the oil market around the world.

 

Basically, we’ve destroyed ourselves diplomatically. I certainly would agree with all of these Republican critics of the disastrous job the Biden administration has done on these issues. But they say we should have attacked China more ferociously than we did, which is ridiculous.

 

I mean, the point is, China has the world’s largest industrial capability. Russia has the world’s largest storehouse of natural resources. If you combine them together, they’re stronger than the US. And NATO. And what we’ve done is push them together.

 

And the fact that we destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, I mean, everybody knows we did it, and most people were sure we did it even before Seymour Hersh, one of America’s most renowned investigative journalists, came out with all the details of it. The point is, we committed an act of war against Germany, our most important continental ally in Europe. We devastated the European economies because of these energy issues.

 

I mean, there’s a perfectly reasonable chance. I mean, it was a very mild winter. Not for the fact there was a mild winter, it would have been a terrible economic situation with the prices of energy and we still might have problems, for example, this summer because of air conditioning requiring a lot of energy. And the next winter. We have inflicted tremendous damage, economic damage upon Germany and our other NATO allies. We destroyed their infrastructure, illegally.

 

And so I think that is the sort of factor that went into the Saudi calculation.

 

In other words, the Saudis thought to themselves if we would destroy the Nord Stream pipelines of Germany, perhaps we’re not the sort of ally they should be involved with and when you take Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China and a few of the other countries who have alienated around the world we’re in a very weak situation compared to what we would have been a few years ago. And what we’ve done is just so utterly irrational driving all these countries together that if we were deliberately trying to sabotage America’s strategic position we couldn’t have probably done a better job of it.

 

And it’s unclear what will end up happening with the Ukraine, but I mean, for example, I’ve been following very closely general Colonel Douglas Macgregor, again, very highly regarded military analyst. And he’s convinced that the Ukrainians are suffering very severe losses, and that the Russians will end up winning the war probably in the next few months and gaining control of most of Ukraine or at least as much of it as they want.

 

Now, again, I’m not a military expert. There are people on the other side who claim that the Russians are the ones suffering losses.

 

But, I mean, the fact that we’re basically right now depleting our storehouses of ammunition and weapons, much of which is being lost in the Ukraine war. I mean, basically there have been all these stories in the mainstream media of the fact that the Ukrainians right now are using up in a month the sort of munitions that America typically produces in a year.

 

And so if at some point we got into war with either China or Russia or some other major power around the world we’ll be in a much weaker state than we otherwise would have been and it was so unnecessary.

 

In other words, I’m very impressed with someone like for example, with John Mearsheimer who you’ve probably seen his lecture about how we basically spent all these years provoking the war, provoking the Ukraine war with the Russians, doing everything we could to try to avert any early peace after the war broke out.

 

And we’re now in a position where we basically are committing an awful lot of our military resources and $120,000,000,000 of our financial support to a regime that I think has a very good chance of losing in the next few months. And then where will it be? The Russians ended up calling up their reserves. They’re basically mobilizing and they might end up coming out of this with a much stronger military force than they’ve had in decades. And we brought it on ourselves, and now we’re looking for another fight with China at the same time, which is just insane.

 

[2:05:27]

 

Keith Woods: And you do think the US would be willing to go as far as war with China over Taiwan?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I hope not.

 

I mean, the whole thing about is China does not want war with Taiwan. China has basically said from the beginning that they’re willing to wait decades to reunify with Taiwan.

 

And in fact, for example, Taiwan right now, there are two political parties in Taiwan. One of them is more anti-China, and the other one, which actually was the original Kuomintang that came from China, that had been traditionally the government of China. They’re much more friendly towards China, and I think they probably have a fairly good chance of winning the next election.

 

So China certainly doesn’t want to start a war with Taiwan. But if we persuaded the Taiwanese to move towards independence, it’s certainly possible that China might end up demanding a blockade over Taiwan.

 

In other words, China could use their long range of missiles to declare a naval blockade of Taiwan, and then that either America would try to break the blockade, which would mean war with China, or America would have to give in on something like that.

 

So it makes absolutely no sense that we’re in one conflict with Russia right now, and at the same time, we’re looking for a new conflict with China.

 

Basically, under the right circumstances, we could have perfectly amicable relations with both Russia and China.

 

In other words, it’s a give and take situation. They have to recognize our interests in certain areas, and we have to recognize theirs in other areas. Ukraine was a red line towards Russia, and by crossing that red line, by forcing the Ukrainians over it, we started a war. Taiwan is a red line for China, and I certainly hope we don’t start another war with China over Taiwan.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I mean, sometimes people have these very structuralist interpretations of geopolitics where everything is for some very sensible, objective international relations reasons.

 

But I really think you can’t make sense of the strategy as it relates to Russia, except just being downstream of the ideology of the people in the State Department and genuine hatred of Russia and what it represents and genuine commitment to global dominance, basically. Because, like you said, the way it’s played out really isn’t going to benefit them in the long run. But look, we’ve gone over 2 hours. I’ll get to the Superchats now.

 

Ron Unz: Sure.

 

Keith Woods: So let’s see. Imperious sent a Superchat. He said if America wanted to devastate China economically, it would simply remove it’s most favoured trade status and hasten the already ongoing exfiltration of manufacturing into the next 14 Latin and Asian countries with better labour costs.

 

Ron Unz: I’m skeptical. Really? It would be that important. The thing to realize is that most favoured nation status was certainly very important for China. 15 or 20 years ago when they were building up. But from what I’ve read, a large fraction of the Chinese economy is now entirely domestic.

 

In other words, they’re not nearly as dependent on exports to the United States as people think they are. And I would argue probably in many ways, America is more dependent on exports from China, low cost exports from China than the other way around.

 

In other words, if you go into Walmart or if you go into a lot of the stores, a huge fraction of our goods come from China. And if we ended up cutting off those goods, I think a large fraction of the American population would suffer even more than they are economically. And that’s certainly.

 

I mean, the economic scenario that he’s talking about was exactly what Donald Trump was focused on.

 

In other words, he was talking about decoupling America from China. But China already has a larger economy than the United States.

 

In fact, an interesting article by a top French policy analyst that I just was looking at a couple of days ago. If you look at, for example, on a real basis, purchase power parity basis, the productive sectors of the economy rather than service economy, which is much more nebulous, China’s economy is already three times larger in real productive terms than the American economy, already three times larger, and it’s larger overall in real terms in purchasing power parity.

 

So the point about it is we’ve passed the point where any of these actions America could take could really severely damage the Chinese economy. While, on the other hand, releasing a virus there could have caused devastating losses and could have really damaged the economy in a very much more effective way.

 

I mean, the truth is, trade issues don’t have the sort of impact of something that could have basically caused the collapse of the Chinese economy or the sort of lockdowns that could have inflicted on the Chinese economy would ultimately happen in the American economy.

 

And also, I’m not necessarily saying it was a sensible action to take, but I’m saying inflicting severe economic damage through a highly contagious, low lethality virus is exactly the sort of thing an experienced biowarfare expert would certainly consider. And the fact that America spent all those decades building up it’s biowar infrastructure means that some point somebody without even asking permission of Donald Trump might decide to use it.

 

Keith Woods: All right. Covid was a fear virus said: Those other Western countries didn’t push fear as a way to control their populations. They more or less used the well earned public trust to calm everyone. Couldn’t access debts just be explained by countries that push fear versus those that pushed calm. I have no idea what point you’re making there.

 

Ron Unz: I’m skeptical. I mean, we’re talking about basically a million Americans died over a couple of years more than previously died if things had gone on the same way. And the pattern of excess deaths seems very closely linked to the obesity of the country.

 

So I think those sorts of objective factors are probably much more likely than questions of fear or lockdowns or anything like that.

 

Keith Woods: Anonymous said Ron Unz versus Ron DeSantis. Who wins in one on one pickup basketball game winners crown king of Florida. May the best Ron win. All right, thank you, Anonymous. Some real high quality Superchats tonight.

 

Another anonymous said, does Ron Unz eat onions? You don’t have to answer that, Ron. Anonymous, why did left liberals in the USA and the EU fall in line to support lockdowns and other such measures which hurt their domestic economy if the attack was directed at China and Iran?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I think as far as I know, the whole thing is American lockdowns actually began right my own part of the country.

 

In other words, the first lockdown in the United States occurred in the San Francisco bay area and was organized by the public health officer of Santa Clara county.

 

In fact, she lives here in Palo Alto. America was suddenly faced with this spreading virus, and we didn’t have any kits, so we couldn’t even tell who was infected, but we knew it was invisibly spreading around the country. Nobody really knew what to do.

 

[2:13:08]

 

In other words, Donald Trump and most of the people in his administration just said, oh, don’t pay any attention to it. It’s not a danger. It’ll go away by itself.

 

And yet suddenly there were more and more cases of people being infected in the Bay area and other parts of the country. I think what probably happened is these public health officers saw that China successfully stamped out the virus through the use of lockdowns in the city of Wuhan in the province of Hubei, and decided, well, if China had used lockdowns to stamp out the virus, the best thing we could try is something similar to that.

 

So, for example, the first lockdowns in the United States began here in the five counties of the San Francisco bay area. A day or two later, it spread to Los Angeles. A day or two after that, it spread to the rest of California and then New York City, New York state and other parts around the country until probably about half or two thirds of the country was locking down. The original lockdowns were intended to last only two or three or four weeks. The problem is they weren’t strict lockdowns.

 

In other words, China basically implemented extremely strict lockdowns in a few cities. To begin with, they stamped out the virus, and within a month or two, the country was back to normal again in the United States, because the virus was very contagious and the lockdowns weren’t at all strict or extremely strong. What ended up happening is the virus continued to spread. And so since the government didn’t really know what to do, they continued the lockdowns then going for weeks and months and for basically a year, or a year and a half.

 

And so the lockdowns ended up really being very ineffective. But they were ineffective not because I think in theory they would have failed, but they just were ineffective given the nature of American society. And it was simply impossible to have the very strict lockdowns that the Chinese had followed.

 

So, again, whether the lockdowns were a good idea or not at the time, I can’t really say, because they ended up failing. Maybe if they’d been done differently, they would have been more successful. But as it is, we ended up getting about 70 or 80% of the population infected despite the lockdowns, and we had a million excess deaths. So it’s not clear whether the efforts really ended up achieving much.

 

Keith Woods: All right. Yeah, this is kind of your last chance to send a Superchat, so if you want to go to Power chat, send them in. Did We Fall sent this on YouTube. I don’t know if you can see that. He said Unz Review and American Pravda are both essential reading. Does Ron foresee any great upheavals in the coming years? A Soviet collapse type event for the West where the system loses credibility and dissenting views prevail?

 

Ron Unz: Well, unfortunately, I think something like that has definitely been happening in the West. I mean, when you look at the tremendous loss of credibility in the American government and the American media, I mean, you know, 40 or 50 years ago, most Americans believed whatever the media and the government told them.

 

One reason, for example, with something like the JFK assassination, that there wasn’t much more of a backlash against what happened is the government, the elites, the media said it was a lone gunman, a random nut, and most people believed it. Most people accepted what the government told them. Even at the time of the 9/11 attacks, I think there was still a strong reservoir of belief in the government and the media.

 

But now we’ve reached the point. I mean, take, for example, the Covid epidemic. You have probably 20% to 30% of the American public that believes the vaccines are deadly and that the government or our elites want to kill them.

 

I mean, that’s much worse than, I think, almost any other country around the world. And it’s because the ruling elites in the United States, the government, the media, the corporations, most of the power centres have just been so dishonest for so long about so many important issues, that I think they’re undergoing the same tremendous loss of trust that was found in the last stages of the Soviet Union before the Soviet collapse.

 

I think when you look at some of the things going on in American society, or even, for example, the events right now going on in France, the protests in France, I think we’re seeing the West really undergoing much of the same disintegration that the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc underwent, 30 or 40 years ago.

 

In other words, I don’t know whether we’re at 1985 or 1987 or 1989 or 1991, but I mean, the degree of hostility towards the American government, or look, for example, the fact that we had a protest over the Donald Trump’s election. The fact that Donald Trump was elected president. Donald Trump, in my opinion, was an extremely flawed candidate, and I think most people would probably agree with that. He was opposed by 99% of the American media. He was massively outspent.

 

The other side spent billions of dollars more than he spent in his 2016 campaign, and he ended up winning the presidency despite all those tremendous handicaps. The reason he won is that the ruling elites of the United States, as exemplified in Hillary Clinton, were so tremendously hated, so tremendously disliked, so tremendously distrusted by the American public that people were willing to vote for a reality star like Donald Trump, over basically keeping things the way they are.

 

And in the case of, for example, when he was running for reelection, the fact that all the elites have to get together and ban him from social media, they have to ban any reports from Hunter Biden’s laptop, all those other factors. If not for those tilts on the scale, I think Trump probably would have been reelected despite the fact that there was such a massive effort on the part of all the unified elites to get rid of him.

 

So, I mean, the point is, when you have something like that happening in American political campaign, it just shows the tremendous hostility there is deep within the American public towards so much of the American leadership class, the American establishment, the Deep State, whatever you want to call it. And I think that’s getting worse rather than better.

 

[2:19:46]

 

Keith Woods: All right, Imperious sent another Superchat. Very generous, Superchat. Thank you, Imperious. Always appreciate your contributions. He said:

 

“Should jews police their own regarding anti-White racism just as much as White people police their own regarding non-White racism? If so, how? Are words enough? Or should there be firings and fines and moderate jail time for incitement against Whites?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, certainly one aspect of our website is that even though we cover a lot of controversial things, the fact that we have much more of an open discussion on jewish issues than most of the other alternative websites, I think, is one sort of important aspect of what we do now. The point about it is, I think the biggest problem we face on all these issues is the media.

 

So, for example, most people, their view of reality is constructed by the media. And if the media constructs a false view of reality, a distorted view of reality, the result is that people believe that they’re acting in a reasonable way when they’re actually not.

 

I mean, the perfect example is what I was saying in the aftermath of the George Floyd death.

 

I mean, there seems to be a lot of evidence that George Floyd died of a drug overdose and a lot of those other incidents of alleged blacks killed by the police in a wanton fashion.

 

I mean, the real stories are very different than what most people believe. But if the media portrays those incidents as being the random killings of innocent blacks by the police, it’s not at all surprising that you get a much higher rate of black crime, of black violence, of black attacks.

 

And so the media is the fault involved. In the same way, I think if more jews in the United States or the Western world became familiar with the true history of the last hundred years, rather than the media portrayed history, which portrays things in a very distorted way, their attitudes towards things would be very different.

 

In fact, a piece I’m just about to republish has to do with the famous case of Leo Frank, the ADL, which was the founding incident of the ADL.

 

In other words, we’re talking about an organization like the ADL. I would bet probably that the vast majority of people in the ADL, in its leadership, probably believe all of the propaganda that the ADL and similar organizations put out about the massive tide of anti-semitism, all of these horrible things that have been done to jews in the United States, around the world, some of which are true, but many of which are not true.

 

And so the point is, once we have a more realistic view of the history of the last 50 years or the last 100 years, I think by itself, that would cause many jewish individuals to take a much more reasonable approach to things than they do right now. Because they get their knowledge of the world from the same movies and TV shows that I think most other people do.

 

And it’s in many cases an extremely distorted view of the world, a view of the world that basically engenders a tremendous amount of hostility, most of which really should not exist.

 

And so that’s a very severe problem.

 

Now, the truth about it is that some of the criticism made against jews or organized jewish groups is correct. Some of it is not, but a great deal of it is correct. And once the facts are brought out, I think that’s the best way to have any chance at harmonious relationships between all these different groups in our society, including blacks and non blacks and jews and non-jews and other groups like that. So it’s a very difficult position. But I think the media and the false portrayal of reality by the media, by the academic community, is a large measure of the problem involved.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, it’s funny. Some people in the chat, like, thought you were going to dodge that question or something. They’ve obviously never visited the Unz Review guys. You should just check out the American Pravda series. It doesn’t exactly shy away from these issues.

 

Okay. Anan said:

 

“Hi. What is your opinion on Bitcoin and CBDCs?”

 

That’s the Central Bank Digital Currency.

 

Ron Unz: To be honest, I’m very skeptical of Bitcoin. It’s not something I’ve really paid much attention to or investigated, but I just don’t see why it’s worth the money it is.

 

In other words, basically, it’s mostly used by people who want to buy it because they hope it’ll go up in value.

 

In other words, it doesn’t really have an economic use. It’s not that people use it in transactions.

 

And in fact, given, for example, the energy cost involved, it’s reached the point where I think Bitcoin is very ineffective. It’s too expensive to use in ordinary transactions.

 

So that’s why some of the other crypto-currencies, I think, are more being used in that. But I should say I’m not an all expert in crypto-currency, and I was amazed when Bitcoin first became as valuable as it was, and I couldn’t imagine why it was going up. And I was not at all surprised when it went back down again. And now I know it’s gone up again a little bit the last few days. So I really don’t have a strong opinion on it.

 

But probably to the extent I do have an opinion, it’s probably much more to the conventional wisdom of someone like Jeffrey Sachs or someone like Paul Krugman, or someone like basically most of the leading investors, basically traditional investors just don’t think Bitcoin really makes sense as an investment, and I’ve never been involved in it myself.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I agree with you.

 

I mean, I’m not exactly an expert on crypto, but everything Bitcoin can do, another coin can do better. If it’s digital cash, there’s things like nano that do instant transactions with no fees and barely any energy. If it’s privacy, it has no privacy. If it’s smart contracts, it doesn’t really have that.

 

So, I mean, yeah, it’s purely the network effect, which how long can that last? I just don’t really buy that it’s going to be like an infinitely expanding network. The richest man in the world has already bought it and dumped it.

 

[2:26:22]

 

Ron Unz: Warren Buffett has been very critical of Bitcoin.

 

I mean, the truth about it is, if you remember about 15 years ago, there was a feeling that housing prices, the mortgage markets, were going up infinitely in the United States.

 

In other words, everybody was buying houses and speculating on houses because they felt housing prices could only go upwards. And the end result was the market collapse, and a lot of people lost everything they had.

 

And so it wouldn’t surprise me if the same thing happens with Bitcoin.

 

In fact, I think there was one claim that right now, the energy cost to produce a single Bitcoin is not that much lower than the lower end of what Bitcoin value was, at one point back maybe a few months ago or something like that, after one of those collapses took place.

 

So if at some point, obviously, the value of a single Bitcoin becomes lower than the energy mining costs of the Bitcoin that produced it, you could see a complete collapse in the Bitcoin market.

 

So, again, it’s not something I’d really rather stick to things where I at least have done some investigation.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I do think crypto is around. It’ll get a lot bigger and there will be huge growth there. But I just don’t think it’s Bitcoin. I think Ethereum will flip Bitcoin and other coins will take over and eventually it’ll collapse.

 

Okay, I think this is the last Superchat, Mike said:

 

“Is the suppression of all the Chinese protests in 2019 sufficient motivation for China to have released the virus? At the time, it just seemed to me like it was the golden excuse for them to shut everything down?”

 

I do remember some people having that narrative that was like CCP pretence to end all the riots and anti-government protests and implement full authoritarianism.

 

Ron Unz: I’m very skeptical of that. I mean, the whole thing about it is the only protests I’m aware of really were in Hong Kong, which is not even really part of China proper, and Hong Kong is a very small postage stamp.

 

So, in other words, if the Chinese wanted to deploy heavy forces, they certainly could have stamped out the protests very easily to whatever extent they wanted. There were no protests anywhere else in China, and the clamp down, basically the lockdowns then were relaxed a month or two later, as soon as they said that, they’d stamped out the virus.

 

It was only last year or so, when the extremely contagious Omicron version got it leaked into China, that they had to have a series of lockdowns, which they finally gave up on and ended up letting the virus spread. And ended up I mean, probably like a million extra Chinese died probably in the last six months because of the spread of Omicron. But it would have been much more serious if the original Wuhan virus had been spread instead.

 

So, I mean, overall, I’m very skeptical of those sorts of scenarios, and I think probably what happened in China was exactly what the government said was happening.

 

In other words, they found this mysterious virus, whose lethality they weren’t sure of at the time, that was spreading very rapidly and threatened to infect the entire country and potentially kill many, many millions of Chinese. But the Chinese stamped it out very quickly in the city of Wuhan, in the provinces, and then life in China went back to normal.

 

So the funny thing about it is, six months after that, life in China was almost entirely back to normal everywhere in the country, while it was the West and America and other parts of the world that were suffering from these very severe lockdowns.

 

So I really am very skeptical of those sorts of complicated explanations. I don’t think the governments in either China or the West did anything other than what they claimed to do. It’s just that the Western governments did a poor job of stamping out the virus early on when they might have been able to.

 

Keith Woods: All right, well, that’s all of the Superchats. Yeah, we’ve gone, two and a half hours, so I do appreciate all your time, Ron. And yeah, again, I recommend everyone check out the American Pravda series. It’s great. I’ve been listening to them today. I need to catch up on more of them. Apparently, it had a big role in red pilling Nicholas Fuentes, I’ve heard him mention that.

 

Ron Unz: That’s great. And what I should say is that the side of the website, if you go to our basic website, there are sections, for example, there’s the Covid section, there’s the Public Health Vaccination section, and that has some of my articles grouped in those sections.

 

So if you’re interested in the Covid issues, going to that section basically contains those articles summaries and also the video clip of the ABC News report regarding basically what might be called the smoking gun of the Secret DIA Report, describing an epidemic in China before it actually happened.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, and just in general, Unz is a great website to visit, Anyone that’s worth reading, Andrew Joyce, Michael Jones, all the sort of big names this side of things, you’ll catch what they write republished there.

 

So, yeah, this was great. Thanks for joining me, Ron. Thanks for everyone that Superchatted and tuned in and take care of one.

 

Ron Unz: Hey, thanks for having me.

 

[2:31:52]

 

END

top

 

============================================

 

YouTube Comments

top

 

173 Comments

@johnnywesley7695
1 day ago (edited)
Unz is wrong about the 1965 Immigration Act. What the Act did is allow immigration through family-based sponsorship which in turn has turned into what we call “chain migration”. The 1924 Immigration Act severely restricted immigration. Then, the 1952 Immigration Act allowed for certain kinds of immigrants with a preference strictly from Europe. The 1965 Act got rid of non-European restrictions and allowed immigrants to come from everywhere, but it did put country quotas and a cap on green cards. As things improved in Europe, less Europeans moved to the US and more third world immigrants who had families already settled in America had them sponsor them for green cards. Once they received green cards, they would eventually become citizens and end up sponsoring other family members left behind — chain migration. Today, the top 10 countries where immigrants are coming from, zero European countries are even on the top 10 list. Mexico ranks number one, followed by China. The rest are Latin American countries, Central American countries, and rest Asian countries. So Unz claiming it reduced Latino immigration is entirely false. Just look up the data via Pew Research.
Read more
105

14 replies

@50centpb7
1 day ago
His take on this doesn’t seem to pass the smell test, just the intentions behind the 1965 immigration act were obviously not to reduce net migration. The complete opposite was true.
26

@wangChung-on4kx
22 hours ago
This entire thing is a larp use critical thinking
2

@nickmoser7785
21 hours ago (edited)
Also prior to the 1924 immigration act we had the Nationality Act of 1790 mostly limited access to U.S. citizenship to White Protestant immigrants from Western Europe—who had resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age.
7

@wangChung-on4kx
21 hours ago
@nickmoser7785 God Bless I love you, without Christ, we are just Jews
1

@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei
21 hours ago
Am I wrong in thinking his woefully absurd take on this is purely determined by his chewish background? If everything was the same, except America was historically a chewish majority state, would he have the same take?
7

@wangChung-on4kx
21 hours ago
@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei Kanye I love you j-wish (Christian ) God bless

@nickmoser7785
20 hours ago
@wangChung-on4kx wrong Judaism split from Christianity not other way around. Christianity is the religion of the old and New Testament
4

@sergeytheweberian7064
15 hours ago (edited)
​ @MichaelJohnson-ij5ei Unz is tricky with this, sorta like Rothbard. In that he did call out The Lobby and tribe’s strong connection to Communism and censoring people to the right of neocons while also being a defacto civic nationalist. And i don’t think he is insincere about it. It’s just that people of his background have rather natural tendency to downplay ideas coming from ethnonationalist camp even when they come eventually to deconstruct the rest of leftist historical and political mythology.
Show less
3

@kw8831
15 hours ago

@Sergey theWeberian I completely agree with your take. I just discovered Roy Unz several weeks ago so this has been on my mind recently. If you just read an article or two of his, you’d get the impression that he is the rarest type of Jew, a full blown based ethno-nat! but after reading many more of his works I kept getting off put by little things, & occasionally something major. It made much more sense after I discovered his heritage…
Not that his Jewishness necessarily makes him wrong or our foe. Roy Unz is not on our side & that’s okay, we should not expect that of anyone but ourselves. With that said some of his articles are brilliant and while he isn’t on our side he certainly isn’t on our enemies either. That’s fair enough to me!
Show less
3

@magaelectrician657
11 hours ago
I don’t think he knew the audience he was talking to
2

@glaucon7337
7 hours ago
It’s not complicated. He is saying that without it the Hispanic immigration rates would have been higher, not that it would be non existent. He explained it very clearly.
1

@musphat3311
22 hours ago
His theories on the pandemic are genuinely intriguing and thought provoking
27
Keith Woods

1 reply
@p.pingtam7253

@p.pingtam7253
18 hours ago
What you thought it was the evil chinese, bruh?
😂, clever boy.
3

@pantsmonsterv6
1 day ago
Unz has done incredible work. Thank you!
51
Keith Woods

@LT-xb5su
1 day ago
Super excited to watch this. Two of my favorites
22
Keith Woods

@zonefreakman
1 day ago
I haven’t really read the Unz publication but I’ll give an open ear if Keith is willing to interview the owner of it. Starting off his immigration argument with saying that one of the biggest negatives of it is the economic problems that come with it is pretty milquetoast though. But I do like his perspective of having brought together people from the left and right on his website rather than being an echo chamber. I’m not sure if it will be effective long term but it’s something different.
Show less
9

1 reply
@cascadiapatriot7831

@cascadiapatriot7831
17 hours ago
It’s obviously in our faces everyday, on the streets, at work, in schools, at stores, in advertising, media, entertainment, and many other areas that the most serious problem with immigration is something other than economics.
5

@k.k8291
1 day ago
Very interesting interview. I’ve always been curious about Ron Unz given his fantastic website (its comment section is of the highest quality I’ve ever came across).
22
Keith Woods

1 reply
@bigolboomerbelly4348

@bigolboomerbelly4348
1 day ago
Totally rocking interview bros!! Im gonna start the new Ron fan club!
9

@joeshmoe4656
23 hours ago
Everyone should check out Douglas MacGregor. Excellent analysis of the situation in Ukraine. He does a lot of interviews with smaller channels Keith, you should try and get him on!
20

1 reply
@brotherjamesstrang

@brotherjamesstrang
21 hours ago
Didn’t know Unz was so soft spoke, very soothing.
8

@UndergroundFriendly
13 hours ago (edited)
29:52 while discussing the subject of increasing amounts of black violence, Keith emphasizes the word “relaxed” followed by a distinct pause.
5

1 reply
@Andrew-cc4vk

@Andrew-cc4vk
9 hours ago
I caught that too

@rorschach6809
22 hours ago
The Pravda series is amazing. Great man
4

@justinhoward218
1 day ago
Yes, fantastic work from Unz. Might need to be backed up on Bufferchute and Odysee l think lol
8

@simonaguilar3646
1 day ago
Love the website. Unz’s own articles not so much.
7

@goodmorningweimerica9741
13 hours ago
Excellent interview with Ron “in other words” Unz!
3

2 replies
@GaryHost-zb5jv

@GaryHost-zb5jv
9 hours ago
I’m glad someone else picked up on this. In other words, I watched some of his talks after seeing Keith would be bringing him on, and noticed he uses the phrase a lot.
3

@goodmorningweimerica9741
8 hours ago
@GaryHost-zb5jv yeah just seems like a tic or something. I notice a lot of intelligent people do something similar when speaking for long periods of time.

@thethinredline4714
1 day ago
I have been for someone from our sphere to interview Ron Unz and who better than Keith Woods
14
Keith Woods

@retter2critical
9 hours ago
This was Unz-Believable!
1

@jewelcitizen2567
1 day ago
Wow… massive scoop kudos to you!
7
Keith Woods

@harryrichards4899
6 hours ago
Unz cheesin at keith is so funny
1

@hansnielsen6280
1 day ago
Great stream, very interesting 👌🏻🐸
1

@indigo6981
9 hours ago
Great interview
1

@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei
22 hours ago (edited)
He’s wrong about migrants not being on more welfare & not committing more crime.
Stats across the board, regardless of nation/continent of origin, show that migrants are more likely to be on welfare. Bearing in mind that there was a time (for most of American history), when America was developing into a superpower, that migrants & settlers received no welfare at all. Welfare + mass migration is just asking for an economic disaster for the common man.
Then in terms of crime, a lot of the migrants flooding into America are coming over the Southern border, & they absolutely do commit more crime. They may not have crime rates as bad as African Americans, but it’s still substantially higher than the White population. I think it’s typically double/triple the rate, & they’re far more likely to be involved in gang activity. Then you also need to factor in that plenty of jurisdictions are now counting Hispanics as Whites, so the true discrepancy is even worse in reality.
Regardless, it’s not even about economics or crime for me, they could all be model citizens waiting on us hand & foot & I still wouldn’t want them here. It’s about the social cost, it’s about self-determination. America as a European melting pot, despite some national frictions, worked because it was formed by people with racially & culturally/religiously similar backgrounds. It’s a lot easier for these people to be absorbed into the host race/culture after a generation or two. Whereas an Indian or Muslim will always consider his interests foreign to those of a White Christian background.
In some ways it is even worse when they’re more capable migrants, because then they have the ability to obtain power & naturally, as I just pointed out, their alien interests agitate against those of the host race. You see this all the time by any alien migrant with any sort of political or legislative power. They’re not thankful towards the host people, they’re only concerned about transforming the nation to reflect/protect their interests & identity, just like chews do. In fact, the way Unz talks about immigration, not even factoring in the social/dispossession cost, reflects his own chewish out-group background. In other words, if Unz was living in Israel as part of the host race, then I’m almost certain he would be factoring in this cost, & it would likely be his primary concern.
Show less
13

3 replies

@Leathal
18 hours ago
It’s clear that even the “good ones” see the native born population as essentially indistinguishable worker units that are no longer replacing themselves through reproduction and thus replacement through immigration is the only path that can be envisioned. It’s not their culture dying out. It’s not their standard of living decreasing. With one specific exception, nations have no purpose but to fill a prescribed role in the grander global machine
Show less
2

@UndergroundFriendly
11 hours ago (edited)
the other thing he missed with regard to immigration and crime is that you tend to see much higher rates among the American born children of immigrants than their parents. they’re most often the ones who become gang members, etc.
1

@crimson1453
5 hours ago
Thank you! This dude genuinely seems very misinformed.

@calengr1
1 day ago
2:17:10 trust level analogous to late USSR
3

@louduva9849
1 day ago
Fascinating guy. I like Ron.
16
Keith Woods

3 replies

@chrisandrews4927
18 hours ago
Glad you’re still around, Lou. Been making me laugh in the comment section for the better part of a decade.
6

@marylamb1407
15 hours ago
Unz is like Makow. “Just as Noam Chomsky strategizes to neutralize leftist anti-semitism by making it seem that Israel is a client state of the U.S. and “neo”-conservatives fund and theorize and promote only those ‘conservatisms’ which lead to bigger government, and military action abroad in favor of Israel.
Makow works the crowd that has its eyes on the NWO. He concedes to small J**ish crimes to direct what would otherwise be a beneficial anti-J**aism which could free us, to a fictional and illusory entity, the Illuminati.” Wintermute. You notice how Ron blames a lot on the CIA but never mentions the Mossad. One would think they are seperate organizations.
Read more
1

@MrTrenttness
8 hours ago
🔥🎸🔥
Thank you

@kirktuss4819
14 hours ago
Unz Review legitimizes the internet.
1

@calengr1
1 day ago (edited)
2:22: 01 ADL :self perception and sense of history; 2:14:15 skeptical re crypto

@thevanillamaster8103
1 day ago
Unz was one of the first people who redpilled me early on
1

@cwilliams6884
11 hours ago
proud monolinguist here, thanks ron

@yankeecornbread8464
9 hours ago
Presents a believable political explanation for why “1965” doesn’t do what we think it does, until one looks at before and after photos taken in metro areas. And not just there. Rural areas in the interior are now visibly different.

@thethinredline4714
1 day ago
I don’t agree with Ron on the 1965 immigration act
48

14 replies
@odyssey9707

@odyssey9707
23 hours ago
Its okay to disagree with someone, believe it or not.
8

@donjuanmckenzie4897
22 hours ago
He has a point though
4

@moma8518
20 hours ago
Can you explain why? He gave good reasoning and has evidence to back it up, can you refute the reasoning he gave?
2

@thethinredline4714
19 hours ago
@odyssey9707 sure

@thethinredline4714
19 hours ago
@moma8518 look at America before and after 1965
17

@bruno.6610
15 hours ago
@thethinredline4714 🤯🤯🤯

@Kevin-kb9nz
12 hours ago
To some extent its inevitable that a rich country will be flooded by a poor one when there is no or very little natrual barrier.
2

@mooseolini1447
12 hours ago
​ @moma8518 I may misunderstand the finer details of the 1965 act and Ron’s arguement, so what follows is my very basic and probably flawed understanding.
As far I understand it, America’s immigration policy prior to the 1965 act, stressed that only “free white men of good character”, could migrate to the US and become citizens.
After the act was passed, anyone could potentially gain citizenship.
Ron is arguing that immigration was higher prior to 1965 and lower afterwards, without regard to the race of those immigrating.
Prior to 1965 only Whites would immigrate, afterwards, any race could immigrate.
I don’t know whether or not what Ron says is true, that immigration rates were higher before the act but regardless, I know which type of immigrant I prefer.
Show less
4

@donjuanmckenzie4897
11 hours ago
​@Moose Olini His argument is that 1965 Act RESTRICTED Latin American immigration, and without it Latin American immigration would have been even higher than it has been
1

@mooseolini1447
11 hours ago
@donjuanmckenzie4897 “Latin American” is a deceptive term. Latin Americans can be White, black, Mestizo, Castizo, Indio, etc.
If “Latin American” immigration was higher prior to 1965 than after 1965 (doubtful, honestly), then it would’ve been White ones who were taken in, as immigration policy at the time restricted citizenship to other races.
My point is that regardless of immigration rates, American immigration policy was superior prior to 1965 because it only granted access to Whites.
Ron seems to dismiss the relevance of racial considerations in his argument.
Show less
4

@enjoful
9 hours ago
😂

@DudeReturns-ty1bg
3 hours ago
Dude the critical drinker complains about ethnic diversity then reinforces it. 🤨
1

@johnnywesley7695
2 hours ago
@donjuanmckenzie4897 It didn’t restrict Latin American immigration. 1965 Act opened immigration to any country through family-based sponsorship. As a result Mexico now is the number 1 country where family-based immigrants are coming from. China is second and India is third.
Show less

@jmedlin81
22 hours ago
very ‘normie-tier’ COVID takes.. wild to hear people still speaking highly of the vaccine, and still speaking of COVID as if it’s a legitimate dangerous threat. I didn’t expect this chat to be so COVID dominated. As someone with several family members having had strokes and other lasting health issues just after the jab, I had to tune out.
Read more
18

6 replies
@p.pingtam7253

@p.pingtam7253
18 hours ago
I betcha Keith is jabberwocky’d.
5

@cantankerouspatriarch4981
15 hours ago
Ron’s take on covid is strangely bluepilled. His views
on pretty much everything else are decently accurate.
5

@ryanthompson3446
15 hours ago
Yep super disappointing, big yikes for me.
5

@conoraq
9 hours ago
This isn’t Infowars, dunno how you ended up here but you’re out of your depth

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
I am neither here nor there on the covid topic, but I know people who died from covid, who didn’t take vaccines. And no, they were not seniors. Does that mean the vaccine was not harmful to anyone? No, definitely not. But this topic is more complex. People on both sides are just obsessed with their one sided version of it and it’s tiresome.
Read more
3

@magaelectrician657
1 day ago
Raising the minimum wage would reduce immigration??? He needs to flesh out this idea a bit more….this is bonkers
10

4 replies

@evanschulz7375
22 hours ago
Strict immigration policy and border enforcement/deportation would work better.
6

@peenweinerstein9968
16 hours ago
At least it’s a palatable proposal to a modern government… not sold on its effectiveness tho

@magaelectrician657
11 hours ago
@evanschulz7375 seriously I mean wtf.

@UndergroundFriendly
11 hours ago
yeah, and he didn’t even explain that claim in any level of detail that supported his argument.

@Kevin-kb9nz
13 hours ago
Please do a follow up with his views
on the holocaust.
2

@evolassunglasses4673
1 day ago
Very interesting. The only other person I have heard on the anti lab leak theory is Patrick Henningsen from 21st Century Wire (also presents UK Column on Fridays).
2

3 replies
@smashedpumpking

@smashedpumpking
1 day ago
Patrick’s great, excellent speaker. Really enjoyed his recent chat with James Delingpole
3

@evolassunglasses4673
1 day ago
@smashedpumpking yes, I saw that. I’d recommend that, it’s on James Delingpole’s Odysee channel.
2

@shayneswenson
23 hours ago
I love when he btfo’s Ukraine regime narrative enjoyers on Twitter spaces
1

@chrishsmith451
1 day ago
Interview steve sailer next
8

@thebrickton1947
1 day ago
Australia’s deindustrialisation, reduction in smoking, western diets and general affluence has contributed to the obesity epidemic, in my opinion, which is what I have seen, everyone was athletic in the 70-80s. Today, popular media promotes the obese clumsy father as an archetype, and the mass abide to the norm.
Read more
3

4 replies

@zonefreakman
1 day ago
Reduction in smoking and deindustrialization? I don’t understand how those things are supposed to contribute to obesity rates. True you have less appetite if you smoke, but there are plenty of obese smokers. It’s a non sequitur. The diets which you’ve mentioned too, is one of the biggest factors in the obesity epidemic, and a lifestyle of laziness. And I’m not sure how lack of industrialization contributes to obesity. Before industrialization most people were not obese, then some time after industrialization obesity rates skyrocketed with mass produced unhealthy food, and comfortable lifestyles.
Read more
2

@nolanhardy3320
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman what he is referring to is post-industrialization, which outsources the industrialization of a nation without removing the abundance that comes with it. This way it is different than pre-industrial state of a nation, because prior to industrialization men had to still toil in the fields. In post industrial societies, you have mostly desk jockeys and great reduction in laborious jobs.
Read more
1

@thebrickton1947
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman smoking surpresses appetite, before automation when aus was expanding and industrial, a large portion of the workforce did manual labour, it ‘road the sheeps back’, and realied upon agriculure and mining, and we had a domestic industry supplying goods to themselves. I have worked many of these roles, many of which are gone due to outsourcing to chinese slave labour
Read more

@thebrickton1947
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman otherwise, I agree with all your points

@gabbyk1391
1 day ago
“The largest problem I see with immigration has been economic.”
This guy doesn’t get it. Not worth conversing with him after he says something as shallow as that.
19

4 replies
@cascadiapatriot7831

@cascadiapatriot7831
17 hours ago
It’s in his genes.
5

@bruno.6610
15 hours ago
He’s jewish, c’mon be fair
1

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
Any kind of argument against it, is appreciated.

@gabbyk1391
7 hours ago
@milan6555 I’m at the point now where I don’t even argue or discuss with people on YT anymore. It always leads to nothing. If someone like you ever asks to be told why something blatantly obvious is the way it is they’re trying to prove something. You can find arguments against it all day if you wanted. You’re on Keith Woods channel friend. He has entire videos about this very topic. So where did you come from and what are your motives?
Read more

@jmedlin81
22 hours ago
1:34:55 I worry when people take Pfizer, CDC, WHO etc at their word, regarding COVID causing the heart issues. It seems these heart issues are vaccine caused, and they’re being blamed on COVID.
12

1 reply
@make756perday

@make756perday
19 hours ago
“If you’re going through hell keep going.” -Winston Churchill
1

2 replies
@whatda7705

@whatda7705
1 day ago
👍👍👍
1

@MikeSmith-go8wk
18 hours ago
Unz fails to recognise that a mix of socialism and nationalism fixes everything. Therefore Unz fails.
3

1 reply
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
Well he is Jewish
1

@marylamb1407
14 hours ago
Honestly Keith this stream was a flop. Unz is as cutting edge as Chomsky. BTW both serve the same purpose, inking the waters of truth.
5

@calengr1
1 day ago
2:09:50 China 3x USA in real goods

@dr.johnbarron746
23 hours ago
interesting man
2

@matthewcarpenter3137
1 day ago
Wow big guest indeed.
1

@marccroft3328
19 hours ago
Not saying he’s all wrong, but be careful, Keith – since you have apparently attracted these types
5

Keith Woods
·
4 replies

@moma8518
19 hours ago
Types of what? Can you elaborate

@marccroft3328
18 hours ago
The 60% revealers & 100% diverters
3

@KeithWoods
18 hours ago
Huh
8

@bruno.6610
14 hours ago
@marccroft3328 What does Unz divert from?

@seapigbs4167
1 day ago
Why does Ron get so little heat?
7

9 replies
@satireofcircumstance6458

@satireofcircumstance6458
1 day ago
Don’t know. But it’s not like he and the contributers on his site pull their punches at all about the taboo subjects.
6

@persiandrum9871
1 day ago (edited)
It’s a fair question. Some surmise that if the ADL and other hall-monitors bring any attention to Uno (especially his excellent article on Holocaustianity) it would only add to their ever-mounting problems. Others think that perhaps Ron is placed there as a relief valve. Who knows? Either way his American Pravda series, while not always on the money, is very worthwhile reading.
Show less
9

@Leathal
1 day ago
He’s like Norm Finklestein on the left – neither are getting their doors knocked down for mainstream speaking engagements, but they’re both oddly allowed to freely speak on forbidden topics without repercussions. (Norm is strictly anti-Israel, he doesn’t discuss the ‘bunga and is mostly pro degeneracy but it’s certainly weird how he can casually drop hard r’s in interviews and such)
Show less
7

@evanschulz7375
22 hours ago
Do a nose check.
5

@cromartie1984
17 hours ago
and yet zemmour had lot of trials.

@marccroft3328
15 hours ago
Controlled opposition

@smittywarbenyagermangensen4860
21 hours ago
In other words, on the other hand
1

@beatsbyjiro8291
16 hours ago
so funny ron is talking about american crime and woods is talking about crime being linked to immigration which is a european view, our biggest crime element has been here since the 1700s
2

@ArilandoArilando
16 hours ago (edited)
55:00

@gorillabiskut
1 day ago
Where Steve sailer at doe?😳

@ThomasBoyd-pe3wc
1 day ago
Based.
2

@nathanhoskins
11 hours ago
My covid related comment got scrubbed FFS.
2

@ryanthompson3446
15 hours ago
Rons c0vid take is cringe.
9

@schoenengutentag
16 hours ago
Very interesting interview. But wow, the chat is just full of nonsense and “just so-” or “heard it from dude on bitchute”-opinions.
4

1 reply

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
I hate to say it, but bever underestimate the grug element within the dissident sphere.
2

@sniper6668
4 hours ago
The Giga-Jew

@KissSlowlyLoveDeeply-pm2je
1 day ago
early life
8

@dancooper4733
20 hours ago
Unz is jewish. That doesnt matter anymore, eh?
4

6 replies
@australiafair5926

@australiafair5926
20 hours ago
If you refuse to engage with any Jewish research/literature you won’t be able to participate in any public conversation. Just don’t take on a Jew as a moral/political guru/leader.
9

@chrisandrews4927
18 hours ago
Honestly no, it doesn’t. Some people will give a nuanced answer involving making perfect the enemy of the good, optics, learning from your enemies, engagement with anyone outside of the “dissident right ghetto” is worthwhile, etc. I’ll give you the real answer- we already lost, our “fight” is over, so we might as well have interesting conversations with interesting people.
Show less
2

@evolassunglasses4673
16 hours ago
He platforms Kevin Mcdonald.
2

@odinsire3879
1 day ago
Based Jew
21

5 replies
@WakaWaka2468

@WakaWaka2468
1 day ago
Nah, the only truly based J was Bobby Fischer.
16

@johnnywesley7695
1 day ago
No. He’s wrong about the 1965 Immigration Act
9

@bruno.6610
14 hours ago
@WakaWaka2468 Otto Weininger

@odinsire3879
12 hours ago
Yeah, he is wrong about that. But overall he seems like a solid guy.
1

@alaskantundrawolf8831
1 day ago
One of the good ones, like Eric Zemmour and Doja Cat.
1

@ericmay4421
1 day ago
Unz is the best
1

2 replies
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
Nah

@ericmay4421
12 hours ago
@Dixey71 Admittedly his voice can work your last good nerve.

@555Trout
22 hours ago
Weird dude. Fed sus.
1

1 reply
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
He is Jewish
1

 

==========================

See Also

top

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

 

============================================

PDF Download

top

 

• Total words in post = 27,059
• Total words in transcript = xxx
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 – Updated YouTube Comments (173).

Version 1: Sun, Mar 26, 2023 — Published post. Includes YouTube comments (xx).