The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
← Confronting the Cowardice of the Far Ri...Why Everything You Know About World War... → 
BlogviewRon Unz Archive
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
Ten Years of American Pravda and The Unz Review • 56m ▶
• June 5, 2023
• 6,500 Words • 341 Comments • ReplyQ&A
Tweet
Reddit
Share
Share
Email
Print
More
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
List of Bookmarks


My original American Pravda article was published just over ten years ago and that same mark is rapidly approaching for the website as a whole. With such a double anniversary now upon us, I think it’s worth explaining the origins of those two interrelated projects and recapitulating how they unfolded.

For nearly three decades I’ve been heavily involved in various political undertakings, and until the last few years I usually operated through the media, speaking with journalists and publishing my own pieces, especially targeting elite outlets such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. This had been the basis of my highly successful campaign more than a quarter century ago to dismantle America’s longstanding system of Spanish-almost-only so-called “bilingual education” and ensure that immigrant children were taught English from their first day of public school. Last year I summarized that history in a lengthy review-essay.

ORDER IT NOW

My most recent success came about a dozen years ago when I’d resurrected the nearly-abandoned Minimum Wage issue, arguing for its powerful appeal both on political and policy grounds, then launched a 2014 national media campaign a couple of years later that managed to restore it to the center of the Democratic Party’s agenda while also attracting the public support of a critical mass of influential conservative Republicans. As a result, big Minimum Wage hikes soon swept across most of our larger states, dramatically raising the economic prospects of our lowest paid workers.

ORDER IT NOW

A couple of years later in 2016, I undertook an even bolder effort aimed at transforming American higher education. I recruited Ralph Nader to head a full slate of candidates for the Harvard Board of Overseers, with one of our main planks being the elimination of undergraduate tuition, a fiscal triviality given the gigantic size of the university’s endowment and its annual income. The launch of our campaign was heralded by a front-page story in the Times, and if we’d won, America’s other most elite universities probably would have followed Harvard’s lead and also eliminated tuition, while the political ripple effects that would have drastically cut college costs all across the country. But we lost.

The other half of our 2016 platform had demanded that Harvard increase the transparency of its extremely opaque and biased admissions system. Back in 2012, I’d provided strong evidence that Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League maintained what amounted to an Asian Quota; this prompted a New York Times symposium on that subject and a year later a group of Asian American plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the university. The discovery motions triggered by that lawsuit eventually revealed that an internal 2013 Harvard study had confirmed my accusations of apparent racial bias against Asian applicants, but the university administration had suppressed and ignored those findings. Now a decade later, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on that racial discrimination lawsuit within the next few weeks, a decision that many believe may severely restrict the use of Affirmative Action within higher education after a half-century of its seemingly inexorable growth.

In late 2006 I’d become the publisher and primary financial backer of The American Conservative (TAC), a small but well-regarded opinion magazine, and a few years later I’d begun writing major articles for that publication, notably including the ones that laid the intellectual basis for the Minimum Wage issue and the Asian Quota lawsuit against Harvard.

These lengthy pieces had often led to the subsequent appearance of closely-related articles in other outlets, bringing my arguments to the attention of much larger audiences:

During that same period of time, I’d also published a variety of other major articles in The American Conservative on other contentious subjects, some of which attracted considerable attention and provoked widespread debate.

 

I’d been very pleased with all these articles, which had earned me a solid reputation as an influential analyst on important policy issues. However, by 2013 my research and writing efforts had also begun to take a very different turn. Much of my time over the previous dozen years had been devoted to a software project aimed at digitizing the archives of many of America’s most influential publications of the previous 150 years, and as I’d explored those publications I’d gradually come to realize that the standard historical narrative that I’d always accepted without question was severely flawed, suffering from massive distortions and gaping omissions. As I later put it:

I sometimes imagined myself a little like an earnest young Soviet researcher of the 1970s who began digging into the musty files of long-forgotten Kremlin archives and made some stunning discoveries. Trotsky was apparently not the notorious Nazi spy and traitor portrayed in all the textbooks, but instead had been the right-hand man of the sainted Lenin himself during the glorious days of the great Bolshevik Revolution, and for some years afterward had remained in the topmost ranks of the Party elite. And who were these other figures—Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov—who also spent those early years at the very top of the Communist hierarchy? In history courses, they had barely rated a few mentions, as minor Capitalist agents who were quickly unmasked and paid for their treachery with their lives. How could the great Lenin, father of the Revolution, have been such an idiot to have surrounded himself almost exclusively with traitors and spies?

My confidence in our mainstream media had already been shaken by the revelation of the non-existence of Saddam’s WMDs in the wake of our disastrous Iraq War, and I had also been shocked to discover how much of the justification for the conflict had been based upon outright lies. A year or two after becoming TAC publisher, I’d summarized much of this criticism in a tribute I published to my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan but had been banned from the media for his fierce opposition to that misbegotten war.

Soon afterward, I was further shocked when I discovered Sydney Schanberg’s remarkable expose of John McCain and the Vietnam War POWs. Despite Schanberg’s stature as one of America’s most respected journalists, a former top editor of the New York Times, the mountain of credible evidence he had compiled supporting that gigantic scandal was totally ignored by our entire mainstream media.

  • Was Rambo Right?
    Ron Unz • The American Conservative • May 25, 2010 • 1,300 Words

The combination of all these factors—together with the alternatives sources of information increasingly available from the burgeoning Internet—led me to publish my original American Pravda article near the end of April 2013, just over ten years ago. I argued that our media might often be little better than the widely ridiculed propaganda organs of the late and unlamented Soviet Union.

In that article, I emphasized that so much of our apparent reality was constructed by the media, which was often far less reliable than many of us had once believed.

Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of falsehood. Certainly the events of the past dozen years have forced me to completely recalibrate my own reality-detection apparatus.

This article attracted more readership than all but a handful of TAC’s previous pieces and it was also republished by the popular ZeroHedge website, while drawing favorable notice from writers in the Atlantic, Forbes, as well as a New York Times columnist.

But the deep and controversial issues I was raising were moving dangerously close to the “conspiracy theories” considered so poisonous in DC journalistic circles, and thus may have raised alarms in certain quarters. So a few weeks later on June 12, 2013 I was suddenly purged from my position at TAC and lost access to the outlet I had previously led. I later published my account of those unfortunate events.

 

At the time of my purge, I’d been doing a great deal of writing with many more pieces planned, but the main outlet for that work had been my own magazine, giving me an urgent need for a replacement. After considering my options, I launched The Unz Review webzine later that same year, though this required months of my time to design and build the customized software system, incorporating numerous features I’d thought might be useful. Since I typically wrote long articles at irregular intervals, I decided to make my new webzine a content distribution channel and commenting platform for alternative perspectives of all ideological types. This would allow it to draw readership on a daily basis, providing a built-in audience for the articles of my own I intended to publish at much longer intervals.

The immediate trigger for my purge from TAC had been a long article I’d written providing an innovative statistical analysis of racial crime rates, which I’d subsequently made available on my small personal website. Once my new publication was released in late 2013, I immediately republished it there.

I had originally planned to continue my writing, but instead I soon launched my Minimum Wage campaign, which occupied almost all my time. Afterwards I became preoccupied with other projects, and then began planning and preparing my Harvard Overseer campaign. As a result, my own writing on other topics was minimal for the first couple of years of the webzine’s existence, though in early 2015 I did publish one important and well-received article on the hidden history of Sen. John McCain.

Our subsequent defeat in the Harvard Overseer campaign in 2016 left me somewhat adrift, but then a couple of months later on July 10th I was saddened to read Sydney Schanberg’s obituary in the New York Times, and was struck that the long and glowing description of his illustrious career had totally avoided any mention of the journalistic project that had dominated the last quarter-century of his life. This prompted me to write a piece on the implications of that striking omission.

ORDER IT NOW

I followed this up with a couple of additional pieces on Schanberg’s work and this began my American Pravda series. Over the next couple of months, I published nearly a dozen articles focusing on some of the important stories ignored or suppressed by the media, drawing from material that I’d come across in previous years.

I also produced an overview of the political/media strategy I had followed both in launching my series and creating the website itself, arguing that our mainstream media constituted a very powerful barrier to any political change and focused on the urgent need to break its hold on the American public.

Traffic on this new alternative media website rose rapidly during 2016, spurred by the huge growth of on-line activism provoked by Donald Trump’s unexpectedly strong Presidential campaign. Although I didn’t think much of Trump myself and never wrote anything about him, many of our columnists and commenters were quite enthusiastic, establishing us one of the very few publications considered supportive of his effort, with an article in The American Interest characterizing us as “a Trump-friendly, highbrow online journal with a devoted following.”

Unfortunately, the huge growth of readership and commenting we experienced put severe strains on the software system I’d built and this led to repeated crashes, forcing me to spend a month or two modifying the system to handle the very heavy traffic. Having thus been diverted into software issues, I then decided to enhance the architecture of the system in various other ways. For example, I extended my software design so that it could easily handle full books in HTML format and added a library of these, making available older or especially controversial volumes that might not otherwise be conveniently available for reading. I also updated the design of the content-archiving system I had created a decade earlier and merged it into the same website.

Afterward I began doing some further reading and research on various historical topics that had long been of interest to me, laying the groundwork for the future articles I planned to write in my American Pravda series, while making arrangements to license the rights to republish some important books in the new, web-based system that I’d developed.

Due to the combined impact of this software work and my new background reading, my major writing went into abeyance for more than a year and a half, and I only was ready to finally resume it by mid-2018, almost exactly five years ago.

So on June 4th, 2018 I finally relaunched my American Pravda series by publishing two simultaneous pieces related to World War II. The first of them hailed the renowned historiography of David Irving while the second described the surprising Suvorov Hypothesis, arguing that Stalin’s Soviet armies had been on the very verge of invading and conquering Europe when Hitler unleashed his own 1941 Barbarossa offensive against the USSR. Both these highly controversial articles provoked a great deal of interest and a huge outpouring of discussion.

ORDER IT NOW

Over the next couple of months, I followed this up with articles covering many of the most explosively controversial topics that I’d gradually encountered and investigated over the years. These included additional articles on the suppressed history of the Second World War and its aftermath, the JFK Assassination, and the 9/11 Attacks.

ORDER IT NOW

Controversial topics related to Jews or Israel have long been widely considered the lethal “Third Rail” for journalists and historians, and many of these issues I covered had actually seemed to have such connections, though they had been deeply suppressed.

I also published several articles directly describing some of my surprising even shocking discoveries in that explosive subject area.

 

I fully recognized that the release of this new series of exceptionally controversial articles would completely transform my journalistic status and that of my website.

ORDER IT NOW

Three months earlier I had been regarded as the author of weighty, analytical articles that often dissected controversial racial issues in a thoughtful and restrained manner, probably best known for my highly-successful late 1990s “English” campaigns and my 2012 Meritocracy article that prompted the Asian lawsuit against Harvard’s admissions policy.

In early 2016 I’d published a lengthy print collection of my essays in support of my Harvard Overseer campaign, and this volume had drawn glowing endorsements by top academic scholars and journalists.

The California Republican Party had long ago destroyed itself as a viable political force and this political vacuum lured me into making a strategic last-minute 2016 entry into the open U.S. Senate contest as a media ploy. In that high-profile statewide race I had been treated very respectfully, sharing a stage with then Attorney-General Kamala Harris at the televised debates, with the state’s leading newspapers favorably reporting the points that I had made. After Trump’s election victory, an elite media outlet had interviewed me for an hour regarding my views, and other important journalists had met with me over lunch in Palo Alto.

Video Link

But then in three short months I had burned all those many bridges to such mainstream respectability, publishing more than a dozen articles that together constituted some of the most controversial and incendiary collection of writings found anywhere on the Internet, a development that must surely have shocked and even horrified many of my readers. When I had lunch a few months later with a mainstream academic friend of mine, he only half-jokingly wondered that I hadn’t yet been arrested. I fully recognized that the extremely radioactive nature of my material would drastically alter my relationship with the mainstream media, which had hitherto always been a central pillar of my past political efforts.

Moreover, this burst of effort was among the most intense I’d ever undertaken. In less than 100 days, I’d produced more than a dozen major articles totaling nearly 100,000 words, an effort that had also required me to read or reread several dozen books and effectively analyze and summarize a vast quantity of complex and extremely controversial material.

There was a logical reason that I had followed such a difficult, rapid-fire publication schedule instead of producing those same articles under a less punishing pace of a year or more. Obviously, the readership of each successive piece helped build the audience and momentum for the next in the series, allowing these to draw far more attention than if they’d been spaced out over time. But much more importantly, I believed that the very concentrated schedule greatly reduced the likelihood of any strong counter-attack in the media by such formidable activist groups as the ADL and its ideological allies.

As my controversial series of articles began appearing, various supportive individuals had expressed wonderment to me at the exceptionally bold positions I was taking. Given that I had long enjoyed a strongly positive public reputation and my website was quite popular, they felt sure that I would soon suffer a media assault of absolutely unprecedented ferocity, with the ADL and its allies totally demonizing me and the publication I had created. I thought otherwise and I was proven entirely correct.

I later explained my counter-intuitive thinking. If I’d only published a single item in my long series, those fierce ideological enforcers would probably have viciously attacked me in just the expected manner, hoping to severely damage my standing while believing that they would suffer no ill consequences if their effort failed. But by the time their leadership became fully aware of what I was doing and considered how to respond, I’d already raised so many different explosive issues on so many different fronts that they faced a difficult strategic predicament. Any attacks they made would certainly bring attention to my articles, and if these failed to destroy me, many of the issues their organization existed to protect might suffer severe damage as the information I presented became more widely known. So they decided that complete silence was the best approach.

Indeed, given that the ADL had decided to avoid battle, I began actively baiting them, ridiculing the fact that they had seemingly gone into hiding, and this finally prompted them to issue a rather milquetoast note, short and anonymous, rebuking me. But that mild slap then offered me an excuse to blast them back with a long and detailed account of the very sordid history of their own organization. I carefully explained that the ADL had originally been established to protect a notorious pedophile rapist and murderer, someone who had tried to orchestrate the lynching of completely innocent black men as a means of deflecting the just punishment for his own crimes.

That powerful counter-blast immediately sent the ADL scurrying back into the shadows, and its leadership seems to have issued an edict declaring that no mention of my name or my publication might appear in any media outlet subject to their influence. A few telling examples revealed this situation over the next year or two, and in a later column I dubbed this amusing situation “the Lord Voldemort Effect.”

I noted an immediate example of this. During October 2018, legal arguments were presented in Boston federal court on the Asian lawsuit against Harvard and the high-profile case attracted a great deal of national media coverage, including numerous articles in the New York Times. One of the Times journalists called me for a lengthy interview that ran an hour or two and after she filed her story she’d dropped me a note apologizing that she’d only been able to include just a few of the many helpful quotes I’d given her. But when her article ran, all my quotes had been removed by her editors, a result that hardly surprised me.

A few months later the ADL probably played a central role in a new wave of Amazon book censorship, with the company suddenly eliminating a wide range of texts that the Jewish activist organization considered noxious. Many of these were hortatory works of white racialism and the loss of Amazon availability probably had little consequence since such manifestos were so widespread all across the Internet. But the monopoly bookseller had also dropped the scholarly works produced by the Nation of Islam Research Group, including an outstanding academic monograph on the infamous Leo Frank case that I had heavily relied upon in my expose of the ADL’s sordid origins. I found it strikingly ironic that Amazon chose Black History Month to purge a top-quality black history text published by one of America’s highest-profile black activist organizations, and I tried to interest the leadership of the latter in organizing a public media protest, but after considering the possibility, they decided against it.

 

ORDER IT NOW

The fulminations of the Trump Administration on immigration and other racially-charged issues had returned these to the center-stage of American politics. Just before the November election, I gave a talk at a conference of the libertarian Mises Institute held near the Texas home of Ron Paul, with my topics including the Hispanic Crime and Asian Quota issues that I’d been best known for prior to my recent American Pravda articles.

This event and the subsequent election results prompted me to publish several long articles sharply challenging the racialist views of the Alt-Right movement that had been brought to national prominence by Trump’s 2016 victory, provoking a vast outpouring of intensely hostile comments disputing my arguments.

In early 2019 I had begun exploring possible topics for new articles, doing a great deal of background reading in various subjects in which I’d come to doubt the standard narrative I’d once accepted.

ORDER IT NOW

World War II had been the shaping event of our modern world, and I’d been pleased with several of my articles describing surprising aspects of that conflict. So I began further exploring that topic, digesting the important information contained in books I’d come across in previous references and eventually publishing a couple of lengthy new articles in May and June 2019. The first argued that for three generations the central turning point of that enormous conflict had been omitted from almost all Western history books while the second drew some very surprising conclusions from a major academic research study of pre-war anti-Semitism in the U.S. military. Then, with approach of the 80th anniversary of the start of the war, I published a very long and comprehensive analysis of what I believed were its true origins, drawing together the material from many of my previous articles and additional books that I now read or reread.

I’d also done considerable reading on the history of organized crime in the United States, and summarized my findings in a long new review article, soon followed by another one on the broader implications of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal that had broken out.

Near the end of 2019 I finally read Ronen Bergman’s long and authoritative new history of the Israeli Mossad and its use of assassinations, and drawing upon his enormous wealth of information, used it as the scaffolding for a very comprehensive compendium of its hidden but likely role in numerous high-profile events involving American interests.

 

Then in January 2020 the entire world—and my own work—suddenly took a totally unexpected turn as our newspapers began reporting the appearance of a strange new illness in Wuhan, China.

The local public health authorities soon explained that a dangerous and highly-contagious new virus was responsible. The disease had appeared at the worst possible place and time for China, in a key transit hub just before the annual Lunar New Year holiday travels, so it seemed likely to spread everywhere, devastating the huge country. As a desperate measure, the Chinese government took the astonishing step of locking-down and confining to their homes all 11 million residents of Wuhan, soon extending the unprecedented lockdown to the entire province and imposing country-wide restrictions.

America’s bitter global confrontation with China had previously been dominating the headlines and before the first Chinese death was even reported, our Internet was already awash with wild claims that the Covid virus was a Chinese bioweapon that had leaked from a Wuhan lab. I became very suspicious of this immediate wave of intensely anti-China propaganda and soon arranged publication of early pieces by journalist Whitney Webb, a retired longtime American biodefense expert, conspiratorial ex-pats, and others that provided very different evidence, even suggesting sinister possibilities.

By February, China’s heroic measures had begun turning the tide and controlling the Covid outbreak, but the virus was now beginning to spread worldwide, with Iran strangely becoming the second global epicenter despite its lack of any substantial Chinese population. Iran’s ruling elites were hit particularly hard, with all of this taking place just a few weeks after America had assassinated Iran’s top military commander, greatly multiplying my suspicions.

ORDER IT NOW

By March, the viral epidemic was devastating Northern Italy and other parts of Europe and beginning to spread uncontrollably in our own country, with the controversial lockdowns beginning in California and copied in various other states.

By April, I had finally accumulated enough evidence to publish my first long article arguing that tens of thousands of Americans had now died from the blowback of a botched American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran). My piece initially attracted very strong readership, but within days our entire website had been banned by Facebook with all our pages deranked by Google, severely restricting our ability to disseminate our ideas.

Despite that serious setback, over the next couple of years I published a long series of additional articles, greatly strengthening the case I had made, but I was shocked that virtually no one else anywhere on the Internet was willing to highlight the same compelling evidence, easily drawn from our leading mainstream media outlets. Over a million Americans eventually died from Covid, along with twenty million people worldwide, making this an event of world-historic magnitude if this hypothesis were true. Yet scarcely a single alternative media writer was willing to broach this explosive subject.

ORDER IT NOW

For decades, the credibility of the our government, media, and other establishment sources had sunk lower and lower, and this led tens of millions of our citizens to severely question the safety and efficacy of the new Covid vaccines. As a result, the once obscure and marginal anti-vaxxing movement suddenly grew to enormous size and moved to the center of the political stage, with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. being one of its most prominent leaders. Enormous numbers of Americans began to believe that the Covid vaccine was a deadly threat to their lives and health, fiercely boycotting the government-sponsored drive. The resulting censorship by social media gatekeepers merely stoked the paranoia of these activists, some of whom began loudly proclaiming that the vaccines were part of an elite plot to exterminate much of the human race.

I dismissed all these fears as groundless and was very irritated when these agitated activists swarmed the comment-threads of my website, with all my subsequent investigations confirming my verdict that the vaxxing fears were almost entirely mistaken. However, a commenter whose opinion I greatly respected on other matters strongly recommended RFK Jr.’s new book and I ordered and read it, being very surprised to discover that nearly half the pages focused on AIDS. Kennedy made a strongly persuasive case that almost everything I’d thought I’d known about that high-profile disease had been wrong, a conclusion that astonished me.

Then in mid-2020, the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis suddenly sparked an enormous wave of racial activism across the country, producing the worst urban rioting and looting in a half-century and deeply impacting our political and intellectual life. For many years, these sorts of issues had been my primary focus and I soon published a controversial article analyzing these developments and coming to some surprising conclusions, then followed it a few months later with a very long and comprehensive review of the intellectual history of white racialism in America over the last century. All of these political developments greatly impacted the bitter 2020 Presidential campaign, leading to a disputed election and the storming of the Capitol by outraged Trumpists.

ORDER IT NOW

In late February 2022 the international landscape was once again suddenly transformed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a geopolitical development of enormous importance. Almost immediately, foreign policy and military matters moved back to the center of the political stage, as America and its NATO allies closed ranks against Russia, imposing a huge package of harsh economic sanctions and demonizing President Putin to an unprecedented extent. Russia’s foreign exchange reserves were seized and the entire dollar-based global banking system was suddenly weaponized with the aim of destroying the Russian economy. Meanwhile, America and its allies soon began providing heavy military support to the Ukrainians, whose resistance was much more effective than had originally been expected.

NATO was soon locked into a bitter proxy war against Russia, but although the Russians failed to win the quick sweeping military victory that many had expected, the Russian economy held up very well, while the loss of cheap Russian energy caused severe economic problems for Europe and America. The economic and political alliance between China and Russia was greatly strengthened, and other major countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, and Brazil gravitated towards that new non-Western axis, while America was widely suspected of having been behind the destruction of Europe’s vital Nord Stream pipelines. There are now indications that the most important global realignment since the collapse of the Soviet Union thirty years ago is taking place, with the emergence of a new multipolar world underway.

Finally, over the last couple of years I’ve also carefully investigated and analyzed quite a number of other controversial historical matters ranging from the period of the First World War to very recent times, summarizing my findings in a series of major articles.

Taken together, this body of work approaches a million words of text, with the bulk of it produced during the last five years. I’ve tried to be very judicious in my claims and careful in my analysis, emphasizing my conviction on some issues and my uncertainty on others. But overall, I think the material covers a range of topics as ultra-controversial as anything found anywhere on the Internet, and I’d stand by virtually everything I’ve written, still believing that 99% of it has been accurate, at least to the claimed tolerances I’d originally expressed.

Related Reading:

← Confronting the Cowardice of the Far Ri...Why Everything You Know About World War... → 
Tweet
Reddit
Share
Share
Email
Print
More
 
Question the Author's Chatbot
The American Pravda Series
← Confronting the Cowardice of the Far Ri...Why Everything You Know About World War... → 
All Comments Hidden • Show  341 Comments • Reply