#CNNBlackmail – The Assault Continues


Fake News Network CNN have continued their assault against sanity and the American President. This time, however, the casualty is a Reddit user known only as HanAssholeSolo.

CNN have blackmailed the Reddit user by threatening to dox him:

CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. [emphasis added]

CNN have tried to claim they did’t blackmail the Reddit user, but many aren’t buying it:

A plain reading of CNN’s article, however, contradicts what the network and Kaczynski are saying. If CNN really intended to withhold HanAssholeSolo’s information regardless of what he did, then why didn’t the news organization say it was withholding his private information simply because he’s a private citizen? Why did it go on to add all the conditions about his behavior? And why did it say it could release the private information with an explicit condition tied to his behavior?

Personally, if I reported this story, it would have been pretty straightforward: “CNN is not publishing ‘HanAssholeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen.” Period. The rest of the information in that paragraph is unnecessary, because a media organization simply shouldn’t release a private citizen’s personal information. He shouldn’t have his private information threatened just because the president picked up one of his Reddit shitposts, which he made with the expectation that he would be kept anonymous. (Though it is a truly bizarre turn of events that it’s even possible to write this sentence.)

This comes after and undercover research by Project Veritas shows the Russia-Trump collusion story to be fake news.


Health Insurance


Requiring health insurance to cover more things makes insurance more expensive and unaffordable, leading to both higher premiums and deductibles. To understand why this is, let’s ask two questions: what is insurance?

The google definition is as follows:

1. a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

2. a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.

The purpose of insurance, then, is to financially protect against a “possible eventuality,” generally something viewed as tragic or catastrophic. So let me ask the reader — does this sound like America’s current model of health insurance?

Certainly not.

Let us look at an example of a different type of insurance — car insurance. The purpose of car insurance is to cover damage to your or other drivers’ vehicles in the event of a car wreck. Car insurance is generally a catastrophic model.

Now imagine if car insurance became like health insurance. Let’s say the state mandated that car insurance had to cover oil changes, tire rotations, new tires, tire repairs, new brakes, windshield wipers, headlights, tail lights, brake lights, and basic car maintenance.

What would be the result of such inane public policy? Higher premiums. On top of that, the prices of the aforementioned items would increase because they would be paid for by a third party, not directly by the consumer. Auto parts suppliers and repairmen would be granted more market power to bargain up their prices.

This is what has happened to health care and health insurance.

Reread the previous sentence. Notice how I mentioned both health care and health insurance as if they are two separate things. It’s because they are two separate things.

Too often people fail to understand the difference between the two. Your doctor’s office and the services he provides are health care. Your insurance policy, if you are lucky enough to have one, is health insurance.

There are some easy solutions to solving the problem:

1. What I’d like to see is real catastrophic insurance, and I don’t mean high deductible insurance (which is commonly and erroneously called “catastrophic” insurance”. I mean insurance that covers emergency care, end of life care, and maybe a few other things. It wouldn’t cover routine doctor’s visits or prescription medication. If you wan’t more coverage, you’d be able to supplemental insurance.

If routine visits to the doctor aren’t covered by insurance, people pay for them directly out-of-pocket. This gives more bargaining power to consumers and reduces the bargaining power of doctors.

2. Health insurance co-ops. These are health insurance plans owned by the members, i.e. those being insured. Plans would be established and managed by insurance companies in exchange for a fee from the members, but the plans would be owned by the insured. Because these plans are owned by the members and not the insurance companies, the premiums and deductibles would be kept low.

3. Require health care providers (doctors, hospitals, etc) to list their prices up front. This would give more power to the insurance companies and co-ops to negotiate lower prices and allow consumers to shop around.

4. I’d keep the marketplace website open (healthcare.gov / state-run sites). The catastrophic plans would be available on the website along with supplemental insurance.

5. Move away from the employer-provided insurance model. Allow companies to give tax-free vouchers to employees so they can purchase their own plans, and give more freedom to allow for health savings accounts.

Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself: An Open Letter to the Left


Dear left-wingers:

I’m sure you’re wondering what happened with the election of Donald Trump. You must be asking yourself how the polls could have been wrong and all of that.

Let me explain to you why I, and so many others, voted for Donald Trump.

It wasn’t because I support his policies or think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I find his views on immigration lacking, and I dislike his protectionist rhetoric. He is a man who has said some stupid things.

Being cognisant of this fact, you may ask yourself why I still voted for the man. The reason is because of you. The state of “the Left” in this country (and around the world, quite frankly) has become regressive. Many of you ironically call yourselves “progressives” or even “liberals.”

You deserve neither word. Looking at the world through the various lenses of identity politics—race, gender, etc.—only divides. It does not bring people together. Using political correctness to call out “problematic” speech or behaviour is not a good way forward. All it does is make people resent you.

Take, for example, the absurdly opprobrious concept of “white privilege,” the idea that white people have some privilege just because they are white, ignoring their background, or any other factors, simply lumping all white people into a group of elites. This is absurd and ironically racist.

A quick Google search to define racism give the definition as:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

And it’s not only that you spout such absurd narratives, but you only allow those narratives you agree with. Anyone who doesn’t toe the line and swallow the regressive Kool-Aid will be ostracised and labelled a racist or some other buzzword you regressives have conjured up to shame those you consider heretics back in line.

Instead of allowing an open debate, a marketplace of ideas, you censor and belittle and attack. You shame people for wrong-think and create echo-chambers for your regressive religion.

The echo-chamber you created has led to the rise of the alt-right and far-right groups. You did that. Otherwise reasonable people could not voice their opinions without being ostracised as a bigot. As a result, these people went online and formed their own echo-chambers, many of them eventually becoming entrenched in their own ideologies and growing more and more extreme.

You created Donald Trump’s victory, just as you created the alt-right and the far-right populism that’s growing in America and Europe. You are the cause of that action.

But don’t worry. There is a solution. I suggest you actually become liberals.

I know you might be confused by that, thinking you might already be a liberal. As I wrote earlier, you are not a liberal. A liberal believes in the freedom of the individual and advocates for rights and civil liberties.

I won’t go into the differences between classical liberals (like myself) and social liberals. But suffice it to say, you are not a liberal because you are not individualists. You don’t support freedom of the individual, like freedom of speech. Instead, you censor and bully and harass people. That is not liberalism.

To be a liberal, you must advocate for the rights of the individual. You must recognise the individual agency and character of individual people, regardless of identities like race or gender. Doing otherwise is just backwards (hence the term regressive) and insulting.


E. H. Williams

Some Thoughts on Race


I haven’t done any research about the latest police shootings where two black men were killed by law enforcement. I don’t want to do any research because I doubt I will find very much that isn’t ideologically driven. I only care about the facts. Only through facts can reasonable public policy be made.

Regardless, one thing is clear: Black Lives Matter is a black supremacist organisation. BLM use violence and coercion to get their way. They don’t actually care about black lives or the quality of life for blacks.

They are neo-Marxists and collectivists. They are regressives who want to send our society back by making everything about race, by looking at the world through a neo-Marxist lens. This is not the way forward. BLM-affiliated organisations have supported racial segregation on college campuses with black-only “safe spaces.” If only George Wallace had used the term “safe space,” right?

These are people who erroneously believe that all white people are privileged simply because they are white, while all black people are oppressed because they are black. They believe that white men are part of some nefarious group trying to keep minorities down. This is patently absurd.

This emphasises the collectivist mentality of Black Lives Matter. By viewing people by groups rather than as individuals, they ignore the circumstances surrounding said individuals. They ignore the power and shortcomings of individuals. They view the world only by groups. They expect us to believe that President Obama is oppressed because of his race while a white, homeless wino living under a bridge is privileged just because he’s white. That’s a completely unrealistic and insane way to view the world.

This is why BLM and other like-minded ilk call black right-wingers “Uncle Toms,” a completely condescending and belittling term. Basically, in the mind of BLM, blacks should believe X, and any black who doesn’t is guilty of wrongthink. How dare you have an incorrect opinion?! How dare you not be a neo-Marxist collectivist who ignores the agency of the individual and only views the world through the lens of race or other conditions over which people have no control?

I acknowledge that there are problems in terms of race in this country. I even acknowledge that many whites have a psychologically different view of blacks. I believe this is natural and rooted in biology. It is natural to be afraid of what is different. There is a reason elephants don’t heard with gazelle. They’re a different species. The elephants and the gazelle can tell that they are different from each other. It’s natural to herd in groups that are more similar.

The solution to fixing race relations is not viewing the world through the lens of race or through the lens of neo-Marxist collectivism.

The solution is determining specific problems and fixing them. For example, the drug war. This terrible, idiotic policy has locked millions of people, many of whom were black, behind bars, and billions of tax dollars have been spent making the lives of those involved in the drug trade worse than they already are. It makes no sense.

Police officers should be generally required to wear body cameras. Police officers are there to serve the people. Many of them are good people. I imagine most are. However, there will always be bad apples in any group, especially in a group that attracts people who are drawn to power.

Speaking of power, this reminds me of the quote from Lord Acton: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Putting police officers under an eye would do well in keeping them honest. This goes back to the famous phrase “who watches the watchmen?” This is a problem as old as government itself. With technology, we now have the means to keep an eye on the watchmen who are meant to serve the public.

I’m sure there are more solutions to be discussed, but those solutions should be discussed and debates using evidence, reason, and logic, not ideologically driven drivel.

No, We Shouldn’t Go Metric


Firstly, I have no desire to use what I consider the Roman Catholic form of measurement. I might be an atheist, but I’m an Anglican Atheist (may the non-existent Lord be with you…).

Obviously the metric system is easier to use. That is clearly obvious. It’s based on the number ten. Division is easy and conversion between grams and kilograms is easy. A kilogram is just a thousand grams. Done. Easy.

The problem, however, is that no one (well, almost no one) uses the metric system on a daily basis. We didn’t grow up with it. We don’t want to convert to it. If we had started off with it, the metric system would be fabulous. But we didn’t. We use pounds, gallons, and the like. We like it that way.

Not using the metric system makes us unique. Yes, we are only one of three countries that don’t use the metric system, along with Liberia and Myanmar (Burma). While that isn’t good company to be in. One has terrible flags, and the other just terrible in general.

Regardless, the United States isn’t terrible. It’s fantastic, even if Americans can’t spell things properly. The United States Customary System makes the United States unique. It makes America great in the same way that common law makes the Anglosphere great. Converting to the metric system would be costly and annoying. No one wants it.

Imagine going to the grocery store and suddenly all of the products are measure in grams, kilograms, and the like. That would cost the store money or it would cost the manufacturers money. They would have to reprint labels and boxes and come up with absurd measurements. Something that used to be measured in ounces would now be measured in grams. This would produce an odd, strange-looking number. A 5 oz. can of tuna fish would now be a 141.75 grams. Who wants that? Sure, the manufacturer could make the units in even numbers, like 140 grams of tuna. But that would mean you’d get less tuna in the can, otherwise the manufacturer would have to change the dimensions of its container. And on top of that, the store would have to relabel everything. It would be chaos.

No one wants chaos. Unless it’s the good kind of chaos, which is never really good.

We Need an Anglosphere Trade Bloc


I certainly believe that Brexit was the right decision for Britain. Leaving the anti-democratic and burdensome European Union allows Britain the freedom to negotiate its own trade deals with the rest of the world, particularly with the Anglosphere, with whom the British share cultural values, language, and common history.

An Anglosphere trade bloc should be established between the major players of the Anglosphere—the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This trade bloc would not only remove tariffs and barriers from trade, but should generally allow citizens of these countries to live in and work in the other countries of the trade bloc without the need to acquire visas.

The removal of these immigration barriers would lessen the cost of a Brit, New Zealander, or whatever from moving to the United States or any other partner within the trade bloc. This allows people to move from where they are less productive to where they are more productive.

The traditional, non-legal barriers to immigration—namely language and cultural differences—are minimal or non-existent between the Anglosphere. Why not remove the legal barriers to immigration, too? There’s little reason not to.

Certainly people moving between these countries would have restrictions or requirements. They would need to pass a criminal background check and might have to purchase health insurance or pay into the public health insurance system, but if they can afford to do so, why shouldn’t an American be allowed to live and work in Britain? There’s no reason why such a person shouldn’t be able to do so.

It must be stated, however, that the last thing I want is some kind of EU-style system or some Anglo-American super-state, the idea of which sounds like a total nightmare.

Failing to create such a trade bloc would only serve to hurt the Anglosphere. These countries share language, history, common law, and values. The trade bloc would increase friendship and strengthen all countries involved.

The Left is Not Your Friend


Only a small part of me understands the desire to be left-winged within the gay community. I suppose it has to do with the internal, mad desire of people to have a simplistic, dualistic view of the world. Gays see the errors of the right in terms of social conservatism and their desire to return the world to the 1950s. This, with a simplistic view of the world, causes gays to move to the left.

Certainly gay people should have no need to love social conservatives, but the good news is they’ve lost. The social conservatives who beat off to the idealised world of Leave it to Beaver have been soundly defeated.

There is no need to be on the left. They are not your friend. In fact, I consider gays to be natural libertarians, or so I think they should be. Gays tend to be wealthier than their straight friends, so it would seem in their best interest to encourage lower taxes and freer markets where they have the entrepreneurial freedom to improve their lives. This, combined with gays’ natural social liberality, should lead to more being libertarians, not “progressives” or regressives as they should be called.

The left has largely been taken over by the regressives and the third-wave feminists. They are no friends to gays, especially not gay men. In fact, feminists don’t care at all about gay men simply because they are men. Feminist sexism should make gay men and feminists natural enemies, not allies.

Further, there is the infantilisation of gay people by regressives, people who think we need protection from bad words or dangerous ideas. Prior to very recently, it was said by the regressive left that gays were oppressed by the evil cisgender white heteronormative capitalist patriarchy, the main conspiracy theory of the regressive left. Now that gays have the right to marry (at least in some Western countries), many feminists now say that gays are not oppressed, and they now claim that gay men are, like their straight male counterparts, the oppressors of women.

The infantilisation and coddling of young people on college campuses has produced a generation of pussies who are afraid of their own shadows. Culture is on the decline because of this. Gays and straights alike are being brainwashed by the regressive insanity to hate the same Western values that give them the freedom to be gay in the first place. In most other places, gays are arrested, executed, or murdered with impunity. Only in Western countries are gays free to be gay. Only in Western countries, at least some of them, are they granted the right to marry where two people who love each other can legally dedicate their lives to each other.

This is combined with the cultural relativism of the regressive left. They erroneously believe that all cultures are equal, an idea that might as well have originated with the Mad Hatter. Are we really supposed to believe that an Islamic culture that treats women as chattel and criminalises (and sometimes executes) gay people is equal to the liberal values of the West? The claim is absurd on its face and patently insulting.

This cultural relativism likewise prohibits even the debate of restricting Muslim immigration into the West, even from Salafi countries. It doesn’t matter to these people that Islam is the mother-load of bad ideas, with Salafi Islam being the cream of the crop of crazy. These are the people who formed Al-Qaeda and ISIS. These are people who commit murder and believe that homosexuality should be a crime. This is not a minority of Muslims. More than half of British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

In addition, even after the Orlando shooting, the left prefer to blame guns and gun owners rather that Islam. Even Obama refused, as he always has, to even say the words “radical Islam.” He would rather cower to the ideology of a mass murderer than speak the truth.

They would rather disarm people and erroneously strip people of their Fifth Amendment right to due process by preventing people on the no-fly list from buying guns, a policy opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and rightly so. They would rather enact gun control legislation and make it harder for gay people to defend themselves. If they had their way, European-style gun control would be the national model, disarming straights and gays alike. Let me make this clear: armed gays don’t get bashed. Destroying the Second Amendment is a direct assault on the ability of gay people to defend themselves from bigots who mean to do them harm. If anyone should support the Second Amendment, it should be gay people.

The era of social conservatism is over. They lost, and the gays won. There is no need to remain on the left when the left has been taken over by lunatics who wish to disarm you, who would rather coddle and insult you, who would rather spread the myth that all cultures are equal, and who refuse to enact policies that actually help gays.