Crossroads 2016: Where do we go from here? 25

By Keith Preston

Last month, I wrote about how many of the predictions that I have been making over the past decade or so have come true during the course of recent events. In particular, the current U.S. presidential election represents the fulfillment of some of these predictions. Hillary Clinton is an almost perfect manifestation of the totalitarian humanist convergence I predicted nearly a decade ago, i.e. the combination of militarism, plutocracy, and police statism with ostensibly liberal and progressive values as an ideological cover (with these enforced by means of an ever more intrusive nanny state). Bill Lind describes the implications of this ideological framework very thoroughly. Jack Ross explains the present day political alignments that have emerged because of the rise of totalitarian humanism. And Vanity Fair describes how a new left-wing of the ruling class has emerged that comes from outside the ranks of the traditional WASP elites and is rooted in newer high-tech industries. I’ve been saying all of these things for years.

Six years ago, I wrote about the ten core demographics that a radical or revolutionary movement in North America would likely need to organize in order to achieve the popular base needed for effective political action. Current events represent the stirring of many of these demographics and in a way that signifies that these cleavages are developing at a much more rapid pace than I thought they would when I wrote that original piece.

The Donald Trump phenomena represents a stirring of the populist right and the sinking middle. The antiwar, civil libertarian, and labor-oriented sections of the Left have become increasingly alienated from both the Democratic Party and the liberal establishment even to the point that some on the antiwar left now favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.


The Tyranny of the Politically Correct: New Book from Keith Preston 8

Black House Publishing.

The Tyranny of the Politically Correct  – Totalitarianism in the Postmodern Age

It is rare for anybody on the political “Left” to be critical of Political Correctness – it is after all a doctrine of their making – but in this book the anarchist Keith Preston is not only highly critical of the “PC” mindset, but he equates political correctness with the totalitarian regimes of Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. The banning of books, the intolerance of dissenters, and even show-trial by the media have all become part of the totalitarian regime that now dominates Western society.

Our Political representatives can sleep soundly for endorsing financially motivated wars, the creation of mass unemployment, the cutting of welfare payments, and even opposing tax increases on the rich – but they fear being attacked in the media for the “non-pc” aspects of their private lives. Publishing houses who established their reputation publishing the works of libertarians such as Thomas Paine, Murray Rothbard and Gustav Landauer, now warn their contemporary authors to omit all references in their work that can be seen to suggest any endorsement of cultural or social inequality for fear of offending the ever vigilant “pc” storm-troopers.

In “The Tyranny of the Politically Correct – Totalitarianism in the Postmodern Age” Keith Preston provides an analysis of how Political Correctness began, and how it has been embraced by not only the political left, but by global corporations in the furtherance of their mutual “One World – One People” agenda.

Thinkers Against Modernity: A New Book from Keith Preston Reply

Available from Black House Publishing.

The prevailing sentiment of contemporary intellectuals is that the human condition has never been better. History is regarded as lengthy episode of oppression that human beings have gradually but steadily fought to overcome with considerable success. Evidence of these successes that are commonly offered include increased material consumption, better health and longer life expectancy, technological development and, above all, the ongoing triumph of “democracy” and “human rights.”

However, the nineteenth and twentieth century produced an array of dissident thinkers that expressed a great skepticism of modern civilization. Their individual critiques were often vastly different from one another. Yet the common idea that emerges from work of these genuine intellectual mavericks is one that laments the loss of traditional societies, and pessimism about the new world that modernity has brought. Instead, the modern project has been regarded by thinkers as different as Nietzsche, G.K. Chesterton and Alain De Benoist to have been a cultural and spiritual degeneration that diminished rather than elevated the nobility of man.

This work by Keith Preston examines the ideas of these thinkers, and considers the potential relevance of their insights in the postmodern age.

$135,000 Gold-Backed Scholarship Fund Launched to Help Students Cope with Federal Reserve Induced Tuition Inflation Reply

By J. P. Cortez

A major national precious metals dealer announced today the creation of the first gold-backed scholarship fund to support outstanding students who understand that gold is money and can articulate the failures of the inflation-creating Federal Reserve System.

Money Metals Exchange, a national precious metals dealer recently ranked “Best in the USA,” teamed up with the Sound Money Defense League, setting aside 100 oz of physical gold, currently worth $135,000, to help outstanding students pay for ever-rising education costs.

“The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies have jacked up education costs, and our company is proud to help students who understand this problem as they cope with this unfolding disaster,” said Stefan Gleason, president of Money Metals Exchange. “Because of abusive and ongoing devaluation of the Federal Reserve Note, we expect the gold that we have set aside to fund the scholarship program will grow in nominal value dramatically over time.”

This scholarship will be open to high school seniors, undergraduate students, and graduate students with an interest in economics, specifically the tradition of the Austrian school. However, one does not have to be an economics major to apply.


Robert Stark interviews Tila Tequila Reply

Listen Here!











Robert Stark and co-host Alex von Goldstein talk to Tila Tequila

Topics include:

How Tila was the first person to catapult social media into what it is today
How Tila became disillusioned with the degeneracy and emptiness of Hollywood
Tila’s response to people who say she is a hypocrite for speaking out against degeneracy
Blackmail, character assassinations, and censorship in Hollywood
Drug Addiction
Meditation and Spirituality
Conspiracy Theories & The Green Pill
How Tila was the first celebrity to openly endorse Donald Trump
The Japanese Vaporwave Donald Trump Commercial
How Tila’s views have evolved and her interest in the Alt-Right
How Tila’s original fans have reacted to her views and her new fans on the Alt-Right
How becoming a mother has changed her outlook on life
How Tila’s Normie friends have reacted to her views
Trolling and Meme Culture
Tila’s upcoming appearance at the National Policy Institute in D.C

The Failure of Anarchism: A New Book from Keith Preston 1

Available from Black House Publishing.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, anarchism was the most feared revolutionary movement in the world. However, in the century anarchism was eclipsed by the rise of the modern totalitarian states, world wars, and the emergence of technocratic managerial economies. Meanwhile, anarchists have failed to provide alternatives to this dominant form of political economy.

In this work, the anarchist theoretician Keith Preston places the blame for these failures on the shoulders of his fellow anarchists. He criticizes the contemporary anarchist movement for having degenerated into a fashionable youth culture that has lost the ferocity of historic anarchism. Instead, present day anarchists are more likely to serve as the lackeys of political correctness than the vanguard of revolution.


How do you solve a problem like the proletariat? 1

How do you solve a problem like the proletariat?
Keir Martland
19th August 2016

I was particularly struck on reading The Servile State by what appears to be a banal or asinine point:

A man politically free, that is, one who enjoys the right before the law to exercise his energies when he pleases (or not at all if he does not so please), but not possessed by legal right of control over any useful amount of the means of production, we call proletarian, and any considerable class composed of such men we call a proletariat.

Indeed, when lefties come out with such a statement, we are right to ignore them; they usually follow this by advocating state socialism, i.e. centralised control of the means of production by bureaucrats. When someone like Hilaire Belloc writes something like the above, however, I sit up and take note. Belloc, Chesterton, &co advocated not state socialism, nor state capitalism, but distributism, which they saw as the mediaeval economy adapted to modern times. The distributists often have a point, although I’m not necessarily a convert.  More…

The Psychology of Political Polarization in the U.S. 1

The best analysis of political polarization in the US (Red Tribe vs. Blue Tribe) that I have seen to date. Jonathan Haidt argues that political ideology and party affiliation are the major dividing lines in American politics, with race and class being a distant second, and religion and gender being an ever further distant third.

Featuring Jonathan Haidt, PhD, New York University, “What Is Happening to Our Country? How Psychology Can Respond to Political Polarization, Incivility and Intolerance”

Keith Preston: US escalating arms race with China Reply

Press TV. Listen here.

“We do not really want to have an arms race escalate between the two countries, particularly when the United States, North Korea and China are all nuclear-armed nations,” says Keith Preston, an American political analyst.

The US government’s increasing weapon deployments near Chinese territories marks an escalation of a “dangerous” arms race with China as the two countries are engaged in a “geopolitical rivalry,” says Keith Preston, a political analyst in Virginia.

Tensions have been running high between Washington and Beijing, since last month’s announcement that South Korea had made a final decision to host the US-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in a base south of Seoul.

US Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley told his Chinese counterpart Li Zuocheng on Tuesday that THAAD was a “defensive measure to protect South Koreans and Americans from the North Korean ballistic missile threat and is not a threat in any way to China.”


The Greatest Threat to Our Freedoms Reply

By John W. Whitehead


There is nothing more dangerous than a government of the many.  The U.S. government remains the greatest threat to our freedoms.

The systemic violence being perpetrated by agents of the government has done more collective harm to the American people and our liberties than any single act of terror.

More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, the U.S. government has become a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

As I explain in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, when the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution, then you no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

What we have is a government of wolves.

Worse than that, we are now being ruled by a government of scoundrels, spies, thugs, thieves, gangsters, ruffians, rapists, extortionists, bounty hunters, battle-ready warriors and cold-blooded killers who communicate using a language of force and oppression.


Restoring Gold and Silver as Legal Tender before the Monetary Crisis Arrives Reply

By J. P. Cortez

The Constitution of the United States of America is not merely a set of suggestions. So when the Constitution says, in Article I Section 10, “No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”, it means exactly that.

Recognizing that the departure from gold and silver backing to our money has led to crushing debt and great financial instability, a few freedom-minded state legislatures have begun to consider how to defend themselves and their citizens. In particular, Utah has charted a path towards a widespread acceptance of gold and silver, declaring any silver and gold coins issued by the U.S. government as legal tender in the state — and free from any taxation.

Even though laws such as Utah’s are merely a step in the right direction, they serve an important symbolic purpose because they encourage greater use of gold and silver as circulating media of exchange.  And such measures start a conversation with the public about the useful role that gold and silver can play in protecting one’s purchasing power, while hedging against the abuses of Washington politicians and Wall Street bankers.

Utah has a modest population of almost 3 million. However, Oklahoma followed with its legal tender law, bringing the total citizens impacted to almost 7 million. The more people are exposed to gold and silver, the more they are likely to recognize their superiority as media of exchange and stores of value.


The Ruling Class Circles the Wagons? Anti-Trump Republican Evan McMullin to launch independent bid for presidency 2

The neocons throw out another jobber as an anti-Trump candidate. Read the article from Politico.Com here.

It looks to me like what is happening is that the ruling class is circling the wagons. I’ve always thought there was no way in hell the power elite would ever let a true dissident like Ron Paul, Cindy McKinney, Ralph Nader or Jill Stein become head of state. Look how far they’ve gone to eliminate uncooperative heads of state in other nations: Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, Chile,Nicaragua, Panama, Libya, Venezuela, Honduras, Iraq, etc., etc., etc. No way are the ruling class ever going to accept someone they perceive as threat to their own interests as a domestic head of state. Trump strikes me as pretty middle of the road compared to these others but apparently even he is too much for them. I suspect what really gets the goat of the power elite about Trump is his partial dissent from the global economy/American hegemony foreign policy paradigm and his conciliatory attitude towards Russia.

I think what the neocons are hoping is that no candidate will get enough electoral votes to win in which case the election will be decided by the House of Representatives which conveniently happens to be Republican-dominated. The upside is that if that happens the entire spectrum of the Left and center-left, plus most of the Right, will be united in hatred of the neocons. But the neocons’ fallback strategy is to simply throw the election to Hillary.

In other words, the right-wing of the ruling class is trying to sabotage their own party in defense of the state. They may lose the party but the state will still be controlled by those that share the ruling class foreign policy and economic consensus even if Big Oil and Agribusiness have to cede power to Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Madison Avenue for 4 years. It’s the same way the establishment parties came together to block the National Front in France.

Ironically, Trump’s economic policies are just regurgitated Republican puke: cutting the corporate income tax, abolishing the Estate Tax, and gutting the environment. He’s not even a real dissident on most issues. He gave a serious interview to Megyn Kelly a few months ago where the only policy proposals he mentioned were the decades-old Republican talking points about “rebuilding the military” and “tax cuts.” Just standard brand recycled Reaganite horseshit. That’s why I think it must be foreign policy that’s the real issue for the GOP establishment and for the political class generally. For the neocons foreign policy is the obvious issue, but I’ve even seen supposed “liberals” like Krugman attacking Trump on foreign policy lately. And denouncing Trump’s foreign policy was the cornerstone of Maudlin Halfbright’s speech at the convention. The real issue seems to be that the power elite do not think Trump will be aggressive enough in defending the hegemony of the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis against challenges from the BRICS and elsewhere. Plus, they may view him as an unstable personality that might be difficult to control.

What we now have is a Nixonized Democratic Party and a Republican Party that’s comparable to the right-wing plutocratic parties you would find in some of the most reactionary Latin American countries like El Salvador’s ARENA Party:…/Nationalist_Republican_Alliance I spent much of my time in grad school studying the civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s and eventually wrote a book on the subject. US political parties today are a lot like what El Salvador had back then: i.e. the center-right Christian Democrats and the right-wing extremist ARENA. The Democrats are thought of as “left” or “liberal” because they have Western European-like views on social issues like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, immigration, etc. But on foreign policy and economics they are presently to the right of Nixon as I said above.…/obama-is-a…/


The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity Reply

By Philip Weiss

David Corn

The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates’ embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq?

Last night Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here’s part of the exchange:

Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don’t get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn’t matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence…

Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there’s a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it’s the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it’s the same group of people that don’t want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don’t want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They’re willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that’s why I have a problem with that thinking. … we’ve got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that’s the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. (“Errors and Lies,” which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes that Bush and Cheney “wanted a war,” which is just a lie masquerading as a tautology.)

Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues — the neoconservatives — who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. It’s a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people to share in Israel’s modern economic miracle.

The evidence for this causation is at every hand.


Bernie Sanders and the New Class Politics Reply

An interesting discussion of Sanders vs. Clinton’s neoliberalism from a Marxist perspective. The apparently escalating divisions between centrist neoliberalism, the identity politics oriented Left and the socialist/labor Left are described in some detail. The only thing that unites the liberal and Left end of the spectrum is their common opposition to traditional WASP hegemony. As WASPs continue to become a less credible enemy, it will be interesting to see what kinds of new political realignments come about.

By Adoph Reed and Daniel Zamora

The Jacobin

A Bernie Sanders rally in April 2016. Patrick Damiano / Flickr

Bernie Sanders’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was historic. The expectations were, to say the least, modest. One year ago, ex-Obama chief strategist David Axelrod didn’t hesitate to mock his candidacy saying that “people will have a fling with Bernie. Bernie is like a great fun date because you know he’s not going to be around town too long, and I think you’re going to see people flirt with that.”

But, against all odds, within months Sanders would raise over $200 million in small contributions, and win more than thirteen million votes (43 percent of the total) and twenty-three states. Though he fell short of the nomination, Sanders left an impact on a generation of new voters and the political discourse in the country.

What exactly that will mean for the Left and the country’s labor movement remains to be seen. But in an interview for the Belgian journal Etudes Marxistes, Adolph Reed discussed the phenomenon and what it could mean for the future.


Robert Stark interviews Adam Hengels Reply

Listen Here!












Robert Stark and co-host Rabbit talk to Adam Hengels

Adam is SVP and Director of Development of PAD, a real estate development start-up that builds communities for young professionals.  PAD’s developments will feature micro-apartments and other product innovations.

From Mega-Projects to Micro-Apartments, Adam has brought his development expertise to several high profile projects such as the $5B Barclays Center Arena and Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, New York .  Adam earned his Masters in Real Estate Development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and has a BS and MS in Structural Engineering.

Adam is passionate about urbanism, and is known as a pioneer in the Market Urbanism movement.  His mission is to improve the urban experience, and overcoming obstacles that prevent aspiring city dwellers from living where they want.  He considers the conventional apartment layout to be stale.  Product innovations such as micro-apartments are a key part of the next wave in urbanism.

Topics include:


If Voting Made Any Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It Reply

By John W. Whitehead
August 1, 2016

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”—Joseph Stalin, dictator of the Soviet Union

No, America, you don’t have to vote.

In fact, vote or don’t vote, the police state will continue to trample us underfoot.

Devil or deliverer, the candidate who wins the White House has already made a Faustian bargain to keep the police state in power. It’s no longer a question of which party will usher in totalitarianism but when the final hammer will fall.

Sure we’re being given choices, but the differences between the candidates are purely cosmetic ones, lacking any real nutritional value for the nation. We’re being served a poisoned feast whose aftereffects will leave us in turmoil for years to come.

We’ve been here before.

Remember Barack Obama, the young candidate who campaigned on a message of hope, change and transparency, and promised an end to war and surveillance?

Look how well that turned out.

Under Obama, government whistleblowers are routinely prosecuted, U.S. arms sales have skyrocketed, police militarization has accelerated, and surveillance has become widespread. The U.S. government is literally arming the world, while bombing the heck out of the planet. And while they’re at it, the government is bringing the wars abroad home, transforming American communities into shell-shocked battlefields where the Constitution provides little in the way of protection.

Yes, we’re worse off now than we were eight years ago.

We’re being subjected to more government surveillance, more police abuse, more SWAT team raids, more roadside strip searches, more censorship, more prison time, more egregious laws, more endless wars, more invasive technology, more militarization, more injustice, more corruption, more cronyism, more graft, more lies, and more of everything that has turned the American dream into the American nightmare.

What we’re not getting more of: elected officials who actually represent us.

The American people are being guilted, bullied, pressured, cajoled, intimidated, terrorized and browbeaten into voting. We’re constantly told to vote because it’s your so-called civic duty, because you have no right to complain about the government unless you vote, because every vote counts, because we must present a unified front, because the future of the nation depends on it, because God compels us to do so, because by not voting you are in fact voting, because the “other” candidate must be defeated at all costs, or because the future of the Supreme Court rests in the balance.


Keith Preston: Trump ‘conciliatory’ position on Russia against US hegemony Reply

Press TV. Listen here.

The “friendly” position towards Russia, adopted by GOP candidate Donald Trump, runs counter to the hegemony on top of the US foreign policy agenda, an American journalist says.

Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of, made the remarks on Saturday, while commenting on remarks by former CIA acting director Michael Morell, alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin has recruited the Republican nominee as an “unwitting agent” in the run-up to the US 2016 presidential election.

“Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated,” Morell wrote in an article published by the New York Times on Friday, in reference to praise previously exchanged between Putin and Trump.

“Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin,” wrote Morell, who has endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president.

According to Preston, “it is in the rational self interest of the United States as a whole to have a more conciliatory relationship with Russia.”

“Donald Trump has not merely been as hawkish about Russia as the American foreign policy establishment generally is,” said the Virginia-based political commentator. “He’s taken a much more friendly, and conciliatory position towards Russia.”

Trump’s stance comes amid pressure on Moscow mounted by the Western powers, particularly Washington, to reduce Russia’s “rightful” and “traditional” presence in Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

The presence, however, runs counter to the hegemony the US is seeking to maintain on the world, which prompts reaction from US intelligence and foreign policy officials such as Morell, Preston noted.

“The American foreign policy establishment is more concerned about maintaining the political and economic hegemony… It is concerned about Russia exercising its own influence,” he said. “Trump appears to be departing from what is a prevailing consensus among the foreign policy establishment about Russia.”

The US stepped up its military buildup near Russia’s western borders since Crimea re-integrated into the Russian Federation following a referendum in the Black Sea peninsula, formerly a part of Ukraine.

The United States and its European allies accuse Moscow of destabilizing Ukraine. Moscow, however, rejects having a hand in the crisis gripping the country and blames the West for the bloodshed there.

Things That Anarchists Say to Me in Private But Never Repeat Publicly 1

Infoshop News

From Reddit

Can you relate?

1) “Call-out culture was developed to allow activist groups to confront leaders who abused their privilege, but now it is being used to settle petty scores on the level of interpersonal politics. I now have a hard time believing some people when they make call-outs because I have seen too many that were based on nothing. Call-outs have become a way to acceptably inflict social violence and rarely are followed up in any way resembling transformative justice because people are not interested in doing the hard work of working with those who are called out.”

2) “As a white person, if I don’t automatically agree with whichever person of color is directly in front of me, I run the risk of being labelled a racist. This is a result of good intentions where we want to center people of color and their experiences, but it makes no sense because people of color are not a monolithic block who all agree or share the same experiences. I am basically forced to perform a kind of double-think where I am expected to be able to agree with multiple conflicting viewpoints at the same time – or at least pretend to.”

3) “The line, ‘it’s not my responsibility to educate you, educate yourself’ is being used too frequently. People should only say this when it would be seriously difficult to help educate someone. Otherwise as an anarchist it is your responsibility to help educate people who want to learn, or to help find someone who is willing to do it. Furthermore, refusing to explain yourself contributes to a form of classism in which people with less formal education and access to information are marginalized within anarchist communities. As well, this line assumes that there are ‘correct’ resources to be reading that are available, and that the person in question will be able to find them among thousands of conflicting resources.”

4) “Excluding straight/cis/male people makes sense in queer/trans/women’s spaces, but often these people are informally excluded in anarchist spaces that are not any of these things. This hurts our ability to cultivate meaningful popular social power. It’s also related to a dynamic where men of color, native men, immigrant men and other groups of marginalized men are severely underrepresented in anarchist spaces. It also assumes that straight/cis presenting people have the option of being ‘more queer’ or ‘more trans’, which is often not the case depending on their circumstances.”

5) “Calling people out for using the wrong language, for example saying ‘biological female’ instead of ‘person assigned female at birth’, is harmful and makes no sense because not everyone has access to the same information, they’ll never learn if they’re excluded, and the ‘correct’ languages changes every couple of years anyway. People don’t want to be associated with us because they see how punishing we are to each other and it turns them off.”

6) “People use ‘unsafe’ when they mean ‘uncomfortable’ way too often and it diminishes the meaning of the word ‘unsafe’ to the point where it’s not very meaningful anymore.”


Keith Preston: Both major political parties ‘cheat’ in US elections Reply

Press TV.


“Both sides cheat in American elections; Democrats and Republicans cheat and that’s been known for many years,” said Keith Preston.

Both major political parties in the United States have cheated in previous presidential elections, a political analyst in Virginia says.

“Both sides cheat in American elections; Democrats and Republicans cheat and that’s been known for many years,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor of

“There has been more blatant cheating in more recent times or it has become more obvious, particularly in this particular case involving the Democratic Party’s efforts to undermine the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders,” Preston told Press TV on Tuesday.

He made the remarks after US Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump cast doubt over the validity of the result of the November presidential election.

Addressing his supporters in the city of Columbus, Ohio, Trump warned that the upcoming presidential vote might be rigged. “I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged,” he said. “I have to be honest.”

The billionaire businessman said he hears “more and more” that the November 8 vote may not be contested fairly.

He stated that the Republican primaries were slanted against him but his “landslide” victories helped him in overcoming the “fixed” system.

Last week, WikiLeaks released about 20,000 emails from the DNC that show top Democrats writing off Sanders’s chances during the primary presidential elections.

Trump suggested that the Democratic Party had fixed its primaries to help Hillary Clinton defeat Sanders in the race for presidential nomination.

“Trump is raising a valid issue, he’s raising the issue that the Democratic Party maybe trying to cheat in the upcoming presidential election as well,” Preston said.

“Donald Trump is very good at using controversial statements and sensationalism as a means of self-promotion, it’s really a big part of what he does,” he added.

According to a CBS News poll released on Monday, Clinton leads Trump by seven percent, 46 percent to 39 percent.

Meanwhile, a CNN-ORC poll released later on the same day showed that the former secretary of state was ahead of the business mogul by nine points.

A Gallup poll released early last month found that Trump and Clinton are among the worst-rated presidential candidates of the last 70 years.