“If I were president, you’d be in jail”


Unfortunately, though perhaps unsurprisingly, many seem to be reacting with shock to Donald Trump’s declaration that Hillary would “be in jail” were he elected. Many of these reactions come from Buzzfeed, AJ+, or Vox readership – but there are some serious voices scattered amongst them. What they have in common is a genuine failure to understand why it is that many of us harbor serious concerns about a Clinton presidency.

The phrase ‘email scandal’ may sound relatively innocuous. Many of you are likely tired of hearing all the fuss about Hillary’s emails – “what’s the big deal about a private server?” you might ask. While it may sound uninteresting, the email scandal is actual incredibly important.

Federal employees are obligated to leave full records of all actions made in their official capacity. This is the law. To not do so is unambiguously a crime. Yet Hillary Clinton broke this law by sending back and forth emails as secretary of state to an unknown number of unknown recipients – remember, this is illegal – and then deleted them to hide evidence of her wrongdoing, erasing over 30,000 emails (that we know of). This is also illegal.

When she was questioned about this before congress, she lied under oath. This is perjury. This is also illegal. The explicit statues that she broke can be viewed here.

A ‘crime’ is defined as “an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government”. In fact, many have been sent to jail in the past for the exact same illegal acts that Hillary Clinton committed.

These are only the crimes that we know of; those she wasn’t able to conceal. But significantly, she committed these crimes while holding federal office. If people in the federal government are breaking federal laws yet not being punished for them, this is strong evidence for corruption.

Corruption is another good one to talk about – because Hillary Clinton (and the foundation she runs) is also hopelessly corrupt. We could talk about the billions of dollars her foundation received WHILE she was secretary of state, from individuals and countries she was dealing with in a professional capacity – Saudi Arabia is one. Or perhaps we might discuss the recent transcripts released by WikiLeaks of her private speech to Goldman Sachs, where she stated she needed a private position as well as a public position on policy – just to reassure the banks that whatever happened, they still owned her.

Finally we could talk about her awful record as secretary of state, and there is no better example of this than Libya.Libya was a country doing relatively well until the Arab Spring with among the highest living standards and average incomes in the Arab world. Upon the outbreak of revolts, Hillary Clinton pushed for airstrikes in that country, the results of which are clear for all to see. There may now be over a million refugees from Libya, around a sixth of the total population, and the country itself is in ruins (it was important enough for HRC to bomb it, but not to rebuild it). Islamic State and Al-Qaeda cells rule Libya now.


Yet Hillary Clinton still celebrated the death of Gaddafi even as Libya was burning with the now infamous statement “we came, we saw, he died!”. Another scandal in Libya was Benghazi, when our ambassador in the city made dozens of additional requests for security, all of which Hillary Clinton ignored. Chris Stevens was killed along with many other Americans when the terrorist attack he feared eventually took place.

In this presidential election we are left with two candidates. Both are utterly unsuitable for the office, albeit in very different ways. But the shills who cry “Hillary did nothing wrong!” should be argued down at every opportunity. Whether we support her or otherwise, we cannot afford to ignore the deeply troubling record of future president Hillary Clinton.

Why We Must Not Turn Away ​From The Kurds

The Kurds of Northern Syria have suffered immensely throughout history. Indigenous to the region, they have never been granted any significant level of autonomy or self-rule. During the entire existence of the Syrian Arab Republic, they held the uncoveted status of most marginalized group, according to Minority Rights International, and were also subject to appalling levels of arbitrary detention, state-sanctioned torture, and illegal appropriation of private assets.


This was worst under the height of pan-Arabism during the regime of Hafez al-Assad. A report by Chatham House details the severity of the situation; the Kurdish language was banned in public, and its use, as well as Kurdish music and publications, were all strictly illegal. However, little changed even after Assad inherited the throne in 2000, much to the detriment of the Kurdish minority.

This makes the recent resurgence of the Kurds within the context of the same Syria that clamped down on any expression of Kurdish identity so very incredible. The autonomous region of Rojava came into existence in 2013 as regional Kurdish militias formed after the Syrian Arab Army rapidly evacuated vast swathes of territory in the face of roving bands of Islamist terrorists as well as larger organisations like the FSA, JaN, and ISIS. The Kurdish militias coalesced into a single statelike structure around the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and took over governmental and military infrastructure left behind when the Assadists evacuated.

Rojava had little time to rejoice in its nominal independence from Syria, as it was immediately attacked from all directions. Attacks from terrorist groups within Syria continued, and the people of Rojava found their resolve tested at the long and bloody Battle for Kobanî. The unlikely victory gained by the military wing of the Rojavan government, the YPG, came at the cost of many civilian lives taken by indiscriminate car-bombs and shelling by ISIS forces. Despite the losses, the defeat of ISIS underscored the resolve of the Rojavan Kurds to the world and showed that they would not relinquish their long-desired independence so easily.

Since then, though, it seems as though the situation has gotten only worse. Despite the fact that Salih Muslim Muhammad, head of the PYD, has repeatedly declared that the Rojavan government will not seek independence from Syria, and will instead seek to maintain their status as an autonomous region similar to Iraqi Kurdistan, the Syrian government has effectively cut ties with the region and refuses to grant it military, economic, or any other substantive form of aid. This is despite Muslim’s repeated overtures to the Syrian government and declarations of support against the Islamist groups that wage terroristic war against both entities.

From its northern frontier with Turkey, Rojava is under constant attack. The Turkish government has stated its flat-out unwillingness to accept any sort of autonomous Kurdish state within Syria, independent or not, and have carried out regular bombing attacks against civilian targets in order to weaken the resolve of the Kurdish people. These attacks intensified early this year, ahead of the official invasion force, which entered Syrian Kurdistan in August.

Thus, the fledgling regional government in Rojava found itself fighting a war on three fronts; against ISIS, against Turkey, and at times even against the Syrian Government. Despite repeated attempts at a meaningful peace revolution, this state of outright hostilities has seen little change in recent years. While the US has engaged in sporadic airdrops to assist Rojava in the past two years, its assistance (and promises of assistance) has been noncommittal and indecisive. Russia, on the other hand, has proven a much more effective ally, allowing for the YPG to call airstrikes on locations it pinpoints, giving it some much needed air superiority in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Yet, any support given by Russia – in other words, any substantial support at all – has been consistently undermined by the West at every turn. Former British foreign secretary Philip Hammond stated earlier this year that he was “disturbed” by reports of Russian assistance to Kurdish forces in northern Syria, shortly before the British joined the Americans in calling the Russians to ‘get out of’ Syria. Yet they provide no alternative, effectively condemning Rojava to extinction at the hands of Turkey and ISIS.

The performance of the United States has been particularly disturbing. Upon the attempted breakaway of Kosovo in the Balkans, the US sent in its air force to drop an astonishing amount of bombs on Serbia in order to guarantee the independence of the fledgling state. Ensuring the human rights of the Kosovar people and preventing genocide were among the reasons used to legitimise this campaign. Given this, American actions in Syria are difficult to rationalize. They are inconsistent not only with its previous decisions when facing similar circumstances, but also with the idea of America as a nation seeking to uphold international order, prevent genocide and crimes against humanity, and ensure peace in the world.

The United States and Britain have chosen to view Rojava and indeed the Kurdish people not as any other nation or folk deserving of basic freedoms, human rights, and entitled to a minimum standard of dignity, but instead as pawns in a twisted kind of Great Game still being played by Washington politicians against Putin’s Russia. As pawns, the Kurds are to be used when expedient and discarded when they become an inconvenience. And given the muted US response to the Turkish invasion of Rojava last month, it appears to be the case that the ‘inconvenience’ is mounting.

Increasingly, the voices from Western politicians, think tanks and so-called ‘policy analysts’ appear to be mounting. Condemnation of Rojavan institutions by Westerners who hold Rojava to an impossible standard is ever harsher. They critique the autonomous region for not being fully democratic, despite the fact that it is engaged in a war with genocidal opponents whose goal is not only the destruction of the state but also of the Kurdish people as a whole. They would demand that the government cease its conscription, ignoring the existentialist conflict the military wing of the PYD finds itself in, and all the while offering absolutely nothing in the way of an alternative.

Of course, some criticism of Rojava’s government and armed forces is legitimate. There is some evidence to suggest that conscription of those under 18 has happened on occasion, despite the practice being clearly illegal under Rojavan law. There are also grounds to criticise the state structure of the government and the total dominance of the PYD at the expense of other parties.

But these critics are overreaching in their conclusions. They suggest that since problems such as these exist, the West should abandon Syrian Kurds to the wolves.

To do so would be disastrous. Not only would it strengthen the Islamic State, the position of the totalitarian Assad government, but also an increasingly Islamist and autocratic Turkey. It would represent a grievous betrayal of previous promises of support made to the Kurds, and would thus cause the US to suffer a massive blow to its international prestige. But, more importantly, it would constitute a betrayal of the principles we hold so dear; those of universal human rights, international law, and the principle of self-determination as described in the UN charter.

Abandoning the Kurds will gain us nothing and strengthen our enemies. We must support them against our mutual foes as the only rock of stability in the otherwise turbulent Middle East.

-Will TG Miller

This article was initially published by Conatus News, and can be viewed at their website: http://www.conatusnews.com/why-we-must-not-turn-away-from-the-kurds.html

The White Boyfriend


Unlike quite a lot of people in college-age America or Britain, I consider myself a relationship guy. Whereas a lot of people in their early 20s are seemingly fixated on casual sex and its acquisition, I’m more interested in getting close to someone to the point where we’re happy sharing our lives together. A partner in crime, so to speak.

Of course, this doesn’t make me any more of an upstanding citizen than anyone pursuing the casual C or D. Many people have in fact criticized men and women like myself who go from emotional attachment to subsequent emotional attachment; ‘serial monogamist’ is a moniker commonly used. But the fact is that this is my life, and having a single closely intimate partner to open up to is how I’ve chosen to live it.

As a white man living in an overwhelmingly white country, the majority of my partners were white – right up until I went abroad for a year of study. Living in Kyoto gave me the opportunity to meet a wonderful young woman in a Chinese class we were both attending. She had cute short hair, and unique facial features; one of her eyelids had an epicanthic fold, an inheritance from her Taiwanese mother, and the other did not, more closely resembling her Japanese father. The very first words she said to me were “Can you teach me Chinese?”.

We fell for each other quickly, and at first it seemed like our relationship was going amazingly. We posed together for photos at scenic spots, she became a part of the social life of my friendship group, and I introduced her to my parents over Skype. She struggled through a self-introduction with them in English, one of the most adorable displays of effort I had seen in a partner up until that point. I realized very quickly, however, that the publicization of our affection was a one-sided affair.

Being a young Japanese girl, publicly pursuing a relationship with a ‘gaikokujin’ or ‘foreigner’ (used often in a racially derogatory sense) would have been something close to scandalous to her parents. Whites generally do not enjoy a good reputation in Japan; we are considered hairy (which is true) smelly (I can’t deny that I sweat buckets in the summer) and crass (which I shan’t comment on). More generally speaking, there is also a stereotype of crude foreigners, white or black, coming to Japan to enjoy alcohol and women. This influenced people’s perceptions drastically – first impressions matter, but in Japan, my first impression was already made for me.

It was not just the fact that I was white; the conservatism prevalent in Japanese society means that relationships are generally kept ‘on the DL’ – especially to one’s parents. I spoke fluent Japanese and in no way exemplified any of the stereotypes commonly used to describe whites in Japan (except hairy, oops) so my treatment by my wonderful girlfriend likely differed little from that which any other boyfriend might receive. But the imbalance of power, where despite receiving no such treatment myself I would invite her into my personal life, introduce her to my parents and friends, and treat her as person par excellence of my social life, was very clear.

This year, after my return to England, I again became involved with someone; this time from Nepal. I had recently gotten into powerlifting, which had taken me on an incredible journey of body transformation, and she happened to be a powerlifter too. We got on incredibly well and enjoyed unparalleled compatibility in almost all aspects of our lives. But again, despite the fact that I invited her physically into my home and would engage with her in all sorts of activities within the domain of my personal and social life, her family and many friends, as with my previous girlfriend, did not even know that I existed.

The strain on our relationship this caused was not minor. I would introduce her to my friends, invite her over to family dinners at my house, and do all kinds of social and couples activities with her. But none of this was ever reciprocated in the realm of her personal life. After half a year of this, I decided that it wasn’t worth it, and decided to pack my bags and move on. abaya.jpgVery recently, I met someone else – a beautiful and fascinatingly opinionated British girl of North African heritage who happened to be a devout conservative Muslim. Hijab and Abaya was the uniform for her, which led to some strange looks from people who saw us walking around town holding hands – I never cared for them. The fact that she was a Muslim and I was irreligious following an extended period of flirtation (and adherence) to that faith never came in between us. There were couple of spirited disagreements, such as when she proposed banning homosexuality, but in general we got on like a house on fire.

That house was not to last, of course. To her credit, she repeatedly warned me that our relationship was only temporary; that she could never really be with me, and that above all, I could never put any details of our relationship anywhere in the public domain. That meant Facebook, friends, colleagues, family were all off limits – it was just the two of us.

I am a culturally tolerant person, but I am also a social person. I want my other half to really be that in its truest sense; I want to be able to engage with my SO by getting to see the intricacies of their daily lives and opening them up to mine. This is impossible if the friends or family of a partner might look down on me for my race or for my lack of religion, as has been the case time and time again. Unfortunately, many – perhaps even most – non-Western cultures are simply not as tolerant when it comes to this issue.

This isn’t going to be the end of interracial or intercultural dating for me; I think that the best kind of relationships are those where you can truly learn from each other and grow as people, and mixed relationships are a great formula for that kind of experiential learning. Unfortunately, until such a time as my partner’s culture respects me as much as mine respects her, I’ll probably always be the ‘white boyfriend’ her parents warned her to avoid.

Turkey has just invaded Rojava – here’s why that matters

Turkish tanks preparing to assault Suruc. Turkish Kurdistan, 2014

Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava) emerged in the milieu resulting from the total breakdown of civil society in Syria following the emergence of the Islamic State and the division of the country by various Sunni extremist rebel groups led by boisterous warlords, with a good amount of ‘secular’ rebels (secular only in the sense of not being outright Islamic extremists).

The Syrian government’s response to the official declaration of Rojava in 2014, which now functions as an autonomous region within the country, was initially extremely hostile, and the government treated Rojava like any other area controlled by rebels; this has now changed. Assad has given Rojava a large degree of unofficial recognition, and the two governments are in full communication with each other. Rojava was also recognized by pro-Assad Russia, which opened up a Rojavan consulate in Moscow last year.

Salih Muslim Muhammad, key figure in the PYD and ‘leader’ of Syrian Kurdistan (Al-Monitor)

Relations between the two improved after Salih Muslim Muhammad, the ‘president’ of Rojava, officially stated that he would not seek independence and that the country would remain an autonomous region within the Syrian Arab Republic. This was a great reassurance to Assad. In return for these overtures, the Syrian government began assisting Rojava on the world stage, such as by formally protesting at Turkey’s rampant, illegal, and genocidal bombing campaigns on Syrian Kurdistan – targets of which include schools, hospitals, and offices of the legitimate government there.

Recently, things have changed. Brief exchanges of fire between Syrian Army troops and Rojavan troops have led to increased tensions. Last week, the Syrian Airforce began air strikes in Hasakah (the second city of Rojava) without warning, killing 20 civilians (mostly farmers) hospitalizing dozens more, and causing serious damage to infrastructure. Hasakah is a city in which power is shared between the Syrian government and Rojava, and although tensions have occasionally flared up with small arms fire being exchanged between sides in recent months, for Assad to engage in airstrikes against the city is a first since the diplomatic reprieve between the two sides. Thankfully, the US scrambled jets over Hasakah to prevent further air action by the Syrian government, but the situation remains tense and it is impossible to say how things will develop from here.

This morning, Turkish tanks rolled into Syrian Kurdistan as the Turkish army commenced a full-scale invasion of the area around the border city of Jarablus. The incursion is completely illegal under international law. While Turkey has previously been engaged in a brutal and close to genocidal airstrike campaign against Rojava, a campaign noted for making no distinction between civilian and governmental targets, this may represent a change in the conflict. Turkey’s desire to annihilate any possibility of a resurgent Kurdish nationalism in the region could lead to an attempt to eradicate Rojava itself.

What happens next is crucial. The Kurds in northern Syria are an indigenous people to the region and they are there to stay. They have established a pluralistic, nonsectarian government along democratic and federal lines that allows no discrimination against the Arab population in the region. Rojava has done its best to reassure Assad that it will not seek independence, and is content with remaining within the Syrian Arab Republic as an autonomous region.

If Assad allows this incursion by Turkey to continue without further protest, it will signal that the Syrian government has changed its stance towards Rojava from toleration murderous hostility. It must be understood that from the Kurdish perspective, the only purpose of remaining within Syria as an autonomous region is peaceful relations with Assad. If this is not possible, Rojava will likely seek full independence as its sole recourse.

We are witnessing a key time in the history of the Syrian Civil War and the Kurdish people. If Assad will not allow Arabs and Kurds to coexist, then brutal, bloody war will be the only possible outcome.

Why Did Islamist Terrorists Target a Priest in France?

The sickly men’s fashion failure that just never seems to die

It happens every year around this time in London; if you’re in the city, you’ll be bound to see it. Walking around Green Park or Whitehall; a horde of ill-advised banking and finance kiddies with a uniform to match their lack of exposure to the real world; loose-fitting blue denim with formal shirts to match. Yikes.

It’s all too real (Pinterest)

Many men working full-time in professional fields may not have enough time to engage in frequent shopping; they’re doing overtime on 9-6 jobs in the City and spend weekends kicking it with chums around their apartments, catching up on work and sleep, or doing egregious amounts of cocaine. Here is the reason behind the instant appeal of the jeans + shirt combination – you’re just wearing what you normally wear, only with the addition of some ill-fitting ‘casual’ pants and shoes that don’t match.

If Legolas can’t pull it off I doubt anyone can (Daily Mail)

Even celebrities have shown themselves capable of falling victim to this tragic phenomenon. Orlando Bloom was snapped here in New York with a similarly drab getup. The man behind him is looking even more unfortunate.

There is certainly cause to sympathize with these people; they’re too busy with their careers and social lives to work out in order to fit into their clothes, or to buy ones that fit better. In fact, this problem seems ubiquitous throughout users of the business shirt & jeans combination. In the majority of cases the fits don’t work; we have classic fit men’s shirts with ballooning muffin top being carelessly stuffed into loose-fitting jeans barely held together with a belt, and poorly selected shoes and belt to match. Does this mean that all jeans & shirts will look bad together?

This hunk confirms it – jeans and business shirts can look good (Lookastic)

Absolutely not, as the man above illustrates; his business shirt is only tucked in at the front, subtly exposing a rich dark brown belt, whereas at the back the shirt hangs out over his jeans. He sports a lighter, more season-appropriate shade of slim-fit denim, which he has cuffed at the bottom allowing his ankles to be the break between his jeans and his low-top purple sneakers – a distinctive and playful adaptation on an overdone and often ill-used style. Note also the accessories on his wrists, which are a good way to dress down any outfit.

In other words, just by buying a lighter shade of jeans rather than having one pair you use all year around, as well as ensuring that the fits on your shirt and jeans are correct, will often suffice. However, to stand out from the rest of the biz-caj crowd, you may want to try out a new outfit combination this summer. For working men, it’s always better to dress down your bottom half before you dress down your top half – so why not go for shorts to fight the summer heat?

Note the extra open button on the formal shirt, elegantly dressing it down a notch (Lookastic)

If you, like me, live in a country where it isn’t always quite hot enough to justify showing so much skin, you can swap the shorts for some cuffed slim-fitting trousers. This slick ensemble is perfect for a bar or club night out with workmates, but it’s also formal enough to wear to meet clients on weekend calls. You can rely on this outfit to take you through your weekend smoothly.

Egyptian cotton and jogging trousers both crease nicely and naturally, lending an air of authentic IDGAF to the ensemble

None of this should be costing you an arm and a leg; if you’re paying anywhere upwards of £300 for an outfit, you’re probably doing it wrong. You don’t need to go to Paul Smith or Ted Baker just for shirts and trousers. Here’s how I picked up the items above:

Topman Premium White Egyptian Cotton Shirt: £38 – $50
Zara Gray Slim-Fit Jogging Trousers: £19 – $25
Clarks Premium Black Business Shoes: £110 – $146
Total cost: £167 – $221

Make sure this summer that you avoid falling victim to the traditional bad fashion tropes that plague young professionals everywhere and equip your wardrobe with what you need to succeed in your professional and social life.

-Will TG

Is the media creating a false narrative on Leave voters?

The outcome of last week’s referendum on British membership in the European Union stunned the world; not only that, it has had immediate and dramatic consequences on Britain and the British economy. Despite this, the Twitter account Britain Elects, which records every electoral result in Britain (from council by-elections to generals) referenced a statistic from ComRes showing that of those who responded, only 43% said that they were unhappy with the outcome, while 48% were reportedly happy with it.

You would be forgiven for thinking otherwise, however. Because almost every media outlet on both sides of the Atlantic has been running stories of profound voter regret at the referendum outcome.

An astute Reddit user, /u/dingoperson2, found an incredibly large number of articles being run which interviewed Leave voters regretting their decision, despite the lack of articles published on Leave voters happy with the outcome. Notably missing, too, were articles with voters regretting their decision on the Remain side.

スクリーンショット 2016-06-26 10.59.19
“Some regret it, others feel lied to” – which leaves precisely zero satisfied or happy.

it is inevitable in any scenario of decision making that there will be some left behind who are unhappy with the decision they chose to take, the outcome, or both. It should be no surprise when this happens. But the narrative being run here by media outlets both major and minor is very different. It reflects a sort of sneering ridicule that the educated and upper classes have for the uneducated and working classes; it is the same sort of disgusting behavior we saw rife amongst the Remain campaigners, who consistently smeared the other side as being ignorant or unaware of the facts in the referendum.

Liberal progressive Bob Geldof saying “fuck you” to a boat of British fisherman campaigning for Leave (The Sun).

Being a student at Cambridge, I personally have seen no end to the Leave-bashing going on on Facebook. There has been no end to the posts attacking and demonizing those who exercised their democratic right to vote Leave. Despite the fact that the young demographic had the lowest turnout rate – only 36% – the vast majority of the verbal aggression has been directed at the elderly, who voted mostly for Leave, and the ‘ignorant’ working classes. This seems strangely ironic – I thought that Leftism was about defending those groups in society who do less well, like the elderly or the working classes?

スクリーンショット 2016-06-26 11.06.22
88 likes for saying “fuk u” to the elderly.

What’s really worrying though, is that we’ve seen simple Leave-bashing descend into an concentrated attempt by almost every media outlet to portray Leave campaigners as regretful bamboozling ignoramuses. When we have narratives in society casting ‘us’ as the enlightened few and ‘them’ as the ignorant masses, discord and infighting can only follow. At this, a time when the country needs national unity more than ever, the media should act fairly to broadcast the voices of not only the Leave voters who regret their decision, but those that are content with it too.

Here is a list (nonexhaustive) of articles on Leave voters ‘regretting’ their decision:



These Brexit Voters Think They Have Made a Horrible Mistake


People are already regretting voting to leave the EU – here’s what they told us






“I’m a bit shocked.” Some Britons are already regretting their vote for Brexit