Goh Keng Swee

My name is Goh Keng Swee. You have probably heard of me as Lee Kuan Yew's right hand. His most trusted lieutenant. The man who executed the vision. That is true. But it is not the whole truth.

The whole truth is that on a July afternoon in 1965, I sat across from Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak, a man I had known since our student days, and I said words that Lee Kuan Yew had not authorised me to say. I told Razak the best thing would be to call it quits. That we should go our separate ways. Lee had sent me to negotiate a looser federation. A softer arrangement. More autonomy for Singapore within Malaysia.

I never raised it. Not once. From the first meeting, I went for the clean break. Because I knew, with a certainty that sat in my bones and would not leave, that a looser arrangement was a slower death. And I would rather have the surgery than the disease. I kept a file on these negotiations. Handwritten notes. Cabinet papers. Records of every conversation. I called it Albatross.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬.

The name comes from Coleridge. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳. A sailor kills an albatross and is forced to wear the dead bird around his neck as penance. Malaysia was the albatross. The great expectations that we foolishly had.  

Singapore Military the early years

That Malaysia would bring prosperity, a common market, peace, harmony. We were quickly disillusioned and it became an albatross round our necks. Very sad. But instructive episode in our political education. I had had enough of Malaysia. I just wanted to get out. I could see no future in it. The political cost was dreadful and the economic benefits did not exist.

So I cut the bird from our neck. Without permission. Lee found out in 1994. Nearly thirty years later.

He was writing his memoirs and he reviewed the Albatross documents and he realised that I had never pressed Razak for the looser rearrangement he had asked me to pursue. I had, from the start, gone for a clean break.

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐈 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦, 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬.

I was born in Malacca in 1918. Peranakan family. My father managed a rubber plantation. My mother came from the family that produced Tan Cheng Lock and his son Tan Siew Sin, who would later become my lifelong political opponent and, to my lasting irritation, my cousin. We moved to Singapore when I was two. I grew up on the Pasir Panjang rubber estate. My family spoke English and Malay at home. Church services on Sunday in Malay.

I went to Anglo Chinese School. Then Raffles College, where I met Hon Sui Sen. Later, in London, at the School of Economics, I met the other men who would shape the future. Razak was one of them. So were Lee Kuan Yew and Toh Chin Chye. After the war, I went to the London School of Economics.

Earned a doctorate. Returned to Singapore as a civil servant in the Social Welfare Department. That is where I learned what poverty looks like. Not in a textbook. In a file. In a face. In the gap between what a government promises and what it delivers.

That gap made me a politician.

𝟏𝟗𝟓𝟗. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭.

When the PAP won the election and I became Singapore's first Finance Minister, the treasury was projecting a $14 million deficit. Businessmen thought the end of the world had arrived. The stock market collapsed. Capital fled. Several people left the country.

I cut civil service salaries. Do you understand what that means? The very people who had just elected us, the people who worked for the government, the people whose support we needed to survive, I cut their pay.

Because the alternative was bankruptcy. By December, I delivered a surplus. One million dollars. It was not much. But it was black ink instead of red. And it told the world that this government would not spend its way to prosperity.

That was my first lesson in what leadership actually costs. It costs the thing that is most convenient to keep.

𝐆𝐨𝐡'𝐬 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐲.

In 1962, I started the development of the Jurong industrial estate on the western end of the island. It was a swamp. Let me be precise. It was mud and mangrove and standing water and mosquitoes and the kind of ground that engineers look at and say "not here."

I said here. I said build factories on this swamp. Lay roads. Run power. Bring water. And then convince multinational corporations, who could invest anywhere in the world, to put their money in the mud on the edge of an island that might not exist as a country next year.

They called it Goh's Folly. The cynics. The civil servants. The men who had never built anything and therefore knew exactly why nothing could be built.

Goh's Folly. I said once, "The only way to avoid making mistakes is not to do anything. And that will be the ultimate mistake." By 1968, Jurong had 300 factories and 21,000 workers. By 1976, it had 650 factories and had become the backbone of Singapore's industrialisation.

Nobody calls it Goh's Folly anymore. They call it Jurong. And every Singaporean who has a job in manufacturing, in petrochemicals, in precision engineering, in the industrial economy that feeds this country?

Standing on ground that was once a swamp that nobody wanted. Except me.

𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦.

Now let me tell you about the room. In mid July 1965, I sat with Razak in Kuala Lumpur. Also present were Ismail Abdul Rahman, Malaysia's Minister for Home Affairs. The context was this.

Singapore had been part of Malaysia for two years. In those two years, there had been two race riots. Communal violence incited by extremists on both sides. The federal government's finance minister, my cousin Tan Siew Sin, had threatened to raise Singapore's revenue contribution from 40 to 60 percent. UMNO leaders had told me, to my face, that Lee Kuan Yew should step down as Prime Minister and that I should replace him.

They wanted a Singapore they could control. I wanted a Singapore that was free. I told Razak: the best thing would be to call it quits.

Razak did not disagree. The Tunku had already been thinking the same thing. He had written to Razak from London, where he was recovering from shingles, about the possibility of "hiving off" Singapore. So the conversation was not whether. It was how. The discussions were conducted in absolute secrecy.

Toh Chin Chye and Rajaratnam, two of our most senior leaders, were not told. Not until 7 August. Two days before separation. When Lee summoned them to Kuala Lumpur and showed them the documents. They were devastated. They refused to sign.

It took a personal letter from the Tunku himself, stating that there was "absolutely no other way," to convince them. That is the part they do not teach you in school. That on the night before Singapore became a country, two of its founding fathers were sitting in a room, reading a letter from the man who was expelling them, and weeping.

𝟗 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟓.

Singapore separated from Malaysia. Lee wept on television. I did not weep. I will tell you why. Not because I was harder than him. Not because I felt less.

Because I had already done the grieving. I had grieved the merger months before, in hotel rooms and meeting rooms and in the back of cars driving between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. By the time it was announced, I had already moved past the loss and into the problem.

The problem was this. We were now a country of two million people with no army, no hinterland, no natural resources, and a neighbour across the causeway who had just told us they did not want us.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭.

I became Minister for Interior and Defence. There was no Singapore Armed Forces. There were a few battalions and a volunteer corps and the withdrawing shadow of the British military, which had been our shield for a century and was now packing its bags. I had to build an army from nothing.

Not in ten years. Not in five. Now. On 13 March 1967, I introduced the National Service Amendment Bill. It passed the next day. Compulsory conscription for every able bodied male citizen aged eighteen. Every son. Every family.

I understood the weight of that. I was not a man who made decisions lightly. I read Clausewitz and Sun Tzu and Liddell Hart. I subscribed to military journals. I studied Israel, a country smaller than ours that had built a citizen army out of necessity and survived. But understanding the theory does not soften the reality. The reality is that you are telling every mother in the country that her eighteen year old son now belongs, for two years, to the state. That is not a policy.

That is a covenant. And the only thing that justifies it is survival.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐈 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭.

The Economic Development Board. 1961. The Development Bank of Singapore. 1968. You know it as DBS. The Monetary Authority of Singapore. 1971. I laid the policies that produced a stable Singapore dollar and preserved the purchasing power of every citizen.

The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation. 1981. A sovereign wealth fund to invest the reserves. It was unprecedented for a non commodity economy to have one. I did not care about precedent. I cared about the future. But here is what people do not expect from me.

Sentosa. 1968. The Jurong Bird Park. 1971. The Singapore Zoo. 1973. The Singapore Symphony Orchestra. I built these because one evening, early in the 1970s, I looked at what we had created and I felt something I did not expect.

Emptiness. We had the factories. We had the army. We had the banks and the reserves and the institutions. But we had not given our people a reason to walk slowly. To sit. To watch a bird. To listen to music that had no economic purpose. A nation that only works and never lives is not a nation.

It is a factory. So I built the things that made a country worth living in. Not because they were efficient. Because they were necessary.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝.

I will tell you something now that I never said publicly. The Albatross file was not just about Malaysia. It was about me. The albatross in Coleridge's poem is a burden the sailor carries as penance for what he has done. He killed something beautiful, something that had brought his ship good winds, and the crew made him wear the corpse around his neck. The albatross in Coleridge's poem is a burden the sailor carries as penance for what he has done. He killed something beautiful, something that had brought his ship good winds, and the crew made him wear the corpse around his neck.

I killed the merger.

The merger was supposed to bring Singapore prosperity. A common market. A hinterland. A future within something larger than ourselves. I killed it because I could see that it was already dead. That what we were wearing around our necks was not a living partnership but a rotting carcass that would drag us under.

But killing it meant accepting that we were alone. Two million people on a dot. No army. No resources. No guarantee that the water from Johor would keep flowing. No guarantee that Indonesia would not invade. No guarantee that the economy I was trying to build on a swamp would survive its first decade. I carried that.

Every day. Every decision. Every time I stood in front of a microphone or sat across from a foreign investor or signed a paper that committed the country to another gamble. The albatross was not Malaysia. The albatross was the knowledge that I had bet an entire nation on my own judgment. Without permission. Without consensus. Without the certainty that I was right. And Goh Keng Swee carried it until the day he died.

𝟏𝟒 𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟎.

Goh Keng Swee died at age 91. Lee Kuan Yew's son, Lee Hsien Loong, said at my funeral: "A whole generation of Singaporeans has grown up enjoying the fruits of growth and prosperity, because one of our ablest sons decided to fight for Singapore's independence, progress and future." Those are generous words. But the word I hold closest is one he did not say.

𝘈𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴. In December 2025, the Albatross File was finally declassified and published. The handwritten notes. The cabinet papers. The records of conversations that decided the fate of a nation.

Lee Hsien Loong said at the launch: "For those who lived through those times, each step was uncertain, each negotiation harrowing, each decision wrenching. Neither our founding leaders nor the people they led could be certain Singapore would survive, let alone thrive. It was, and still is, a miracle." A miracle.

That is a kind word for the result of a decision made by a man sitting across from his old college friend, in a room in Kuala Lumpur, saying words he had not been told to say. I stepped down from politics in 1984. They gave me the Order of Temasek the following year. But the heaviest thing I ever wore was not a medal.

It was a bird. And I wore it gladly. Because the alternative was to let it hang around the neck of an entire nation. Most Singaporeans know Lee Kuan Yew cried on television when Singapore separated from Malaysia. Almost none of them know that the man who made that separation happen was sitting beside him, dry eyed, carrying a secret file called Albatross.

Goh Keng Swee did not cry because he had already mourned. He had mourned the merger in private, in meeting rooms and hotel corridors, long before the cameras switched on. And by the time it was announced, he had already moved past grief and into the work. That is what it looks like when someone makes the hard call nobody else will make.

You do not get to grieve publicly. You do not get to hesitate. You do not get to say "I was told to do this." You make the decision. You carry the weight. You accept that if you are wrong, history will remember you as the man who broke a country apart. And if you are right, history will call it a miracle and credit someone else.

Goh Keng Swee built your economy on a swamp. He built your army from nothing. He built your banks, your reserves, your industrial base, your zoo, your symphony orchestra. And he separated your country from a federation that was strangling it, without permission, without consensus, without certainty.

Here is the question he leaves behind. What is the decision you are avoiding because you are waiting for permission? The call that everyone around you knows needs to be made, but nobody will make because the cost of being wrong is too visible and the reward of being right will be claimed by someone else.

What is your albatross? The thing that is hanging around your neck, dragging you down, that everyone agrees is a problem but nobody will cut loose because cutting it loose means accepting that you are alone with the consequences.

Goh Keng Swee cut it.

He carried the weight.

And a country flew.

Hoodwinked under the guise of piety, hypocrisy

The RM230 million investigation involving public donations collected for charitable purposes has drawn significant attention.

According to the authorities, the case involves an NGO and public welfare-related funds, not official zakat institutions.

Sealthedeal : Well said as usual Mariam. There is only one solution. Withhold Zakat until trust is restored. Zakat to government then directly to the needy and cut our the middle men and NGOs. 

I have often wondered how these myriad of Islamic NGOs who are rallied to create a nuisance on ridulous issues are funded. It's becoming clearer. Zakat should never go through middlemen. It's a recipe for corruption.

One of the Taliban’s most powerful tools was execution. Not hidden executions, but public ones meant to warn others. It was a calculated display of terror, captured on camera, showing the world the brutal methods the Taliban used to control a nation, and the fear they left behind still lingers today. WHY would I want ANY of THESE people in MY Country..??!!??

He explains the historical role of Sikh warriors, the significance of the kirpan, and its purpose in defending communities against aggression. The conversation examines UK law around religious exemptions, including carrying the kirpan under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and debates on equal application of the law. 

He also addresses tensions within Sikh communities, the Khalistan movement, and his stance against extremism and radicalisation. Sikhism was started by Guru Nanak, who preached equality and peaceful living among all men and religions. 

He was tolerated by the Muslim ruler at the time, but after the death of the Muslim ruler, Ackber, the religion came under persecution. When Aurangzeb took over the reign, he forced everyone to convert to Islam. This culminated in the birth of the Khalsa fraternity among the Sikhs, the movement to defend the faith. 

This turned the Sikhs from a peace loving people to a warrior fraternity, but they still retained their beliefs in Guru Nanak to live a virtuous life. Their identity has changed, but not their beliefs. They were no match against the much stronger army of Aurangzeb, but they found on and held their ground. Their bavery became a legend and saved the day for them.

Police Brutality And Murder

What was unexpected were the racist and religious comments on social media - some targeting her skin colour, others even suggesting closing vernacular schools.

Such comments clearly breach Section 233 of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA), which criminalises offensive communications intended to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass. Yet, the MCMC has done nothing.

GrayParrot9290 : Pmx / PKR / Madaini failed ! Simple for all to see and disappointed for all who voted for them especially non Bumis. Just waiting for GE16 to make right !

Sealthedeal : All non Muslims know that the authorities are biased. It's continual fight against these racist religious bigots that will never cease. They are corrupt. 

The MCMC is a biased organisation employing their army of snoopers to seek out transgressions from non Muslims and ignore the same from their own kind. They should be disbanded if they cannot be trusted to be fair.

BluePanther4725 : This Madani government is a FAILURE! It is a version of BN2.0, no thanks to Anwar and his UMNO cronies. This government is practicing double standards of the Law to suit themselves. 

No criticism of them is allowed while those PAS and UMNO people are free to vilify other races and religions. These politicians have made Malaysia a disgrace, it's time for the People to take back our country!

Asam Pedas : The law is tilted to favor Malays in every sphere. Some areas more blatantly.

Do these politicians even understand how Forbes actually ranks the rich? Every single person in Malaysia’s Top 50 richest list shares one crucial thing in common: they all own at least one major public-listed company. Forbes calculates their net worth almost entirely based on publicly traded shareholdings — the current market value of their stocks on Bursa Malaysia.

This is wealth on paper only. It’s publicly listed shareholdings, stock market valuations, and transparent business empires that actually generate taxes, jobs, and economic activity. Paper wealth from people who build companies instead of looting GLCs and hiding billions in offshore accounts and safe houses.

And you still twist it into “Malays are poor, Chinese are greedy.” This is exactly the pattern across Southeast Asia — 70-80% of the richest in Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand are ethnic Chinese. It’s what happens when a community focuses on business, education, and grinding while others play the race-and-religion lottery for power and contracts.

The same politicians scream “Bumiputera rights!” while their own cronies and families sit on fortunes that would make Robert Kuok look like a pauper. Taib Mahmud , Mahathir & Daim could buy out half the Forbes list. Rosmah Mansor’s jewellery haul alone: One police raid seized over RM443 million worth. That’s not even counting the rest of her collection.

Daim Zainuddin’s family: Menara Ilham (RM1.7–2 billion+), plus MACC-tracked overseas assets exceeding RM3 billion. Just one building. Najib Razak owes LHDN RM1.7 billion in tax. Mahathir’s sons openly bragging they’re billionaires.

Tengku Adnan treating RM2 million as “pocket money” with a net worth pushing RM1 billion. Former UMNO division chief Jamaluddin dying with RM2 billion in assets. Zahid Hamidi’s RM300 million in the bank. Ismail Sabri’s & Azmin Ali “safe house.”

These people don’t appear on Forbes because their wealth is hidden — not listed, not transparent, not contributing a single sen in corporate tax or jobs to the Malaysian economy. If Forbes used real forensic accounting instead of public filings, the top 100 would be almost zero non-Malays. None of them crack Forbes because their fortunes are invisible — offshore accounts, Panama Papers style, proxies, cash, gold, properties not listed on Bursa Malaysia.

Forensic accounting would wipe the non-Malays off the top 100 entirely. Your wealth is the real one. Ours is just the visible part you love to demonise. And the government’s own data you bury every time:

T20 households: 53.81% Bumiputera, 37.05% Chinese, 8.8% Indian. Bumiputera already own the majority of the top income bracket. Among Chinese households: only 29.66% in T20. 42.32% M40. 28.02% B40. That means 7 out of every 10 Chinese families are NOT rich. With 7.6 million Chinese, roughly 2.25 million in T20.

Bumiputera (21.8+ million) have 4.4 million in T20 — double the Chinese. Chinese corporate equity? Crashed from ~70% pre-NEP to ~23% today. Bumiputera equity (including GLCs and GLICs) already exceeds 30%. Yet you liars still parrot the 19% figure like it’s 1970.

71% of Chinese households are NOT in T20. Most are middle-class strivers or struggling like everyone else. But you don’t give a damn. You need the envy narrative to stay in power.

You weaponise the Forbes list every year to stoke envy, win votes, and justify more “pro-Bumiputera” policies that do one thing only: enrich the elite class of pejuang agama dan bangsa. This isn’t about helping poor Malays. It’s about justifying more theft. Jana Wibawa scandals.

Forcing 51% Bumiputera equity in freight forwarding (Ministry of Finance policy, shoving non-Bumis out). Now even GLC/GLIC property disposals demand 50% Bumiputera buyers — another knife in the back of actual entrepreneurs.

All while your cronies feast on GLC contracts, bailouts, and “Bumiputera champions” programs that somehow always enrich the same elite circle. The real parasites aren’t the Chinese tycoons paying taxes and employing Malaysians — it’s the loudest shouters waving keris and samurai swords, hiding their billions offshore, then screaming “Malay poverty!” to justify stealing more of the economic pie.

The Forbes list doesn’t prove Chinese are “richer.” It proves who actually contributes — through listed companies, taxes, jobs, and investment that grows the economic pie for everyone. The real richest?

The loudest pejuang agama dan bangsa waving keris and samurai swords while their hidden billions dwarf the entire Forbes list. They steal the pie, then scream at the Chinese for the crumbs. The hidden wealth — the real wealth — is with the very people who brand themselves as defenders of the race while picking the country’s pockets dry. Stop lying to the poor Malays.

Stop pitting communities against each other. The only people getting richer from your narrative are the elite Bumiputera class who will never appear on any honest rich list — because their billions are buried where the public can never see them. Poor Malays aren’t poor because of Chinese tycoons.

If you are obsessed with African safari tours or love watching real-life safari caught on camera moments, this video is packed with action. We’ve included everything from aggressive elephant charges to unbelievable lion encounters right next to tourist vehicles. Witness the most extreme wild animal attacks and lucky escapes ever recorded.

Investigate all NGOs that receive/collect Zakat funds from all State Religious Councils. Last time palestine fund also same pattern, come on , these fund are meant for those in needs. Selagi ada agama, selagi itu boleh ditunggang. 

Kes kes macam ni yg tunggang Agama dlm Politik semua diam masuk Gua ! They threatened people from other religion, and oh no, now they 'sapu' 'the money. Misappropriation. That amount is huge! PIS Hadi kata rasuah itu sedekah, demi maruah, agama dan bangsa Melayu.

This video also features incredible moments, moments caught on camera, and one in a billion moments in nature that remind viewers to respect animals, stay alert, and keep a safe distance in unpredictable environments. These Most BRUTAL ANIMAL ATTACKS Caught on Camera clips are presented for awareness, education, and observation.

NBC Los Angeles reported on April 8 that the local cops were “investigating a possible ‘hate incident’ at an Islamic Society of Simi Valley building.” The intrepid journalists, however, showed no apparent curiosity about exactly what kind of “hate incident” had been perpetrated.

Why is the public not allowed to learn the specifics? Law enforcement authorities and/or media outlets (it’s not clear who made the actual decision in this case) seem to assume that their readers are too immature to be able to handle hearing the details of a “hate incident” at the local mosque without grabbing their tiki torches and heading over to the mosque to join in the hate. It’s either that, or authorities think that the public’s sensibilities are so fragile that they simply wouldn’t be able to handle the news.

One possible clue about the nature of the “hate” involved here might come from the fact that a local church was the target of a recent “hate incident” as well. The Ventura County Star reported Friday that “a Lutheran church in Simi Valley was vandalized with a hate message on April 16, over a week after an Islamic mosque in the city reported a potential hate crime, authorities said. Officers with the Simi Valley Police Department arrived at the Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church at 4191 E. Cochran St. around 12:42 p.m. in regard to a vandalism report, according to authorities.”

As the conflict with Iran continues, many elements of an ultimate deal have been explored. Issues such as nuclear weapons development, missile production, uranium divestiture and enrichment, foreign proxy financing, as well as activities in the region by Israel and Arab nations, have been scrutinized. In the meantime, it is well recognized that any deal with the Iranian regime is suspect; compliance has always been questionable, and efficient monitoring creates an even greater set of problems.

From the beginning, the notion of "regime change" has received much attention. For some, it means the termination of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For others, it entails the complete elimination of all who have led and participated in the Iranian Revolution for decades. For others, it can be satisfied with a mere leadership change on the assumption, as with the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, that new leaders may emerge who will lead the nation to greater cooperation with the U.S., turn away from fueling terror through proxies in other nations, and, because of an improved economy, be open to granting the general population greater individual freedoms.

One focus that has been completely absent from the public discussion concerns the regime’s own constitution and whether amendments, if not a full overhaul, should be on the table. Of course, a change in a document does not guarantee a meaningful change in behavior. Nonetheless, the failure to agree to specified amendments, if not a totally new framework, demonstrates that true change of the type much of the world would appreciate is unlikely.

MICHAEL OREN: IRAN HAS WAGED WAR ON AMERICA FOR 47 YEARS — TIME TO END IT

The existing constitution, formed in 1979 and subsequently amended in 1989, outlines a vision that is fully incompatible with Western principles and that has guided and given reason to all the regime has sought throughout its forty-seven-year existence. It also gives meaning to what has often been mistaken for mere hyperbolic cheerleading: "Death to America."

Tehran responded to the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign by targeting civilian infrastructure across the region, including firing cluster munitions at Israeli residential areas and striking hotels and energy facilities across the Persian Gulf. It also moved to choke the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to raise political costs for the Trump administration by driving up global oil prices. This has now given way to a fragile truce, with Tehran and Washington negotiating over Hormuz, the nuclear file and proxies, while the regime’s repression at home remains absent from the agenda.

Iran’s primary military leverage—its missile production, launch capacity and stockpiles—has suffered a heavy blow. But airpower alone only becomes existential if it creates space for Iranians to shape outcomes on the ground. Aware of that vulnerability, Tehran has used the ceasefire to tighten its grip at home. With fewer external pressures, authorities have escalated executions, extrajudicial killings and arrests, while deploying Shia terror proxies across Iran to reinforce control and deter potential unrest.

Leaving the people of Iran out of the equation is not just a human-rights concern. It risks alienating the regime’s true existential threat: the largest pro-American and pro-Israeli population in the Middle East, which, if it prevails, could reshape the world order. It also stands in contrast to the messaging that casted the campaign as enabling Iranians to reclaim their country.

In fairness, progress was underway toward those promises, but the timeline was abruptly shortened. Israel struck the infrastructure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its subordinate Basij and local law enforcement, all units that have fired on unarmed protesters since 1999. But dismantling repression requires degrading personnel, not just facilities. Even estimates of more than 5,000 killed since Feb. 28 pale against the hundreds of thousands across security forces.

Those who have been following Europe’s Islamization crisis (these days, America’s crisis as well) may remember the ‘Burkini’ flare up in France. Pennes-Mirabeau, a French town, barred Muslim women from going into swimming pools fully clothed in ‘Burkinis’ arguing that it was unsanitary.

The media rallied to defend the mandatory Islamic dress codes, which, as previously mentioned, having nothing to do with modesty (people who are actually modest don’t issue press releases or talk endlessly about their bathing suits) and accused Pennes-Mirabeau of ‘Islamophobia’.

Now some years later, Pennes-Mirabeau is in the news with likely more accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ coming after farm animals were sexually assaulted by an Afghan ‘refugee’.

A sordid affair has unfolded near Marseille. A 19-year-old man is suspected of raping goats and sheep in the town of Pennes-Mirabeau (Bouches-du-Rhône). An Afghan national, he was arrested on Friday, April 10, and taken into custody by the anti-crime brigade (BAC), according to information from La Provence and France 3 regions, confirmed by Le Figaro .

It was the sheep and goat owners in the town who alerted the authorities. Since the beginning of 2026, several of them had found some of their goats and sheep injured, particularly in February and March. The animals had their legs tied and showed signs of sexual abuse

After several similar incidents, the owners installed camera traps (motion-activated cameras) on their property in the hope of solving the mystery. They were horrified to discover the silhouette of a young man visiting their livestock.

He was arrested overnight between Thursday and Friday and taken into custody. An Afghan national, he faces up to three years in prison and a €45,000 fine for cruelty to a domestic, tamed, or captive animal.

But who are we to judge their culture? There are some 100,000 Afghans who have invaded and still occupy parts of France. France opened the door to Afghans with catastrophic results for both people and animals.

Read it all here........

The Depravities Towards Black Africans

Even within Islam you have shiite and sunnis fighting each other so how can there be peace with them? Christopher Hitchens : “Resist while you still may". Best quote on Islam. Radicals are snakes in the grass, moderates are the grass that hide the snakes. We need to stop being nice when do things like praying in public. Ban this.

1.) Expand Muslim Political Influence Through Organizing and Coalitions, 2.) Enforce ‘Social Justice’ Norms via Education and Redefinition of Community, and 3.) Reduce Traditional Conservative Power Through Legal and Political Pressure.  

In a recent episode of the “CAIR on Air” podcast titled “How Muslims & Other Minority Groups Became Political Targets in America w/ Veronica Laizure”, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) National Deputy Director Edward Ahmed Mitchell sat down with Veronica Laizure, Executive Director of CAIR Oklahoma. 

The conversation reveals a clear agenda: Oklahoma is in CAIR’s sights. The speakers lay out plans to reshape the state through legal action, education campaigns, and political organizing. They aim to expand Muslim political influence, enforce “social justice” norms aligned with their ideology, and reduce traditional conservative power in one of America’s reddest states.

CAIR’s Coalition Strategy: Straight from the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘The Project’

In an X post advertising the podcast, CAIR states in part:

“From forming partnerships between groups with diverging ideolgies [sic] and navigating tensions among diverse coalitions, this conversation provides an inside look at the ups and downs of coalition building amid the fight against fascism.”

This concept is exactly what was prescribed by “The Project“, the 1982 subversive Muslim Brotherhood blueprint to turn America into an Islamic state by advising Islamic groups to form temporary, tactical partnerships with ideologically opposed movements, including secular nationalists and left-wing coalitions, on shared battlegrounds like the fight against fascism (or colonialism/Zionism), without ever forming genuine alliances, extending trust, or ceding leadership.

A 1982 Muslim Brotherhood document titled “Towards a Global Strategy for Islamic Policy”, known as “The Project”, outlines a long-term plan to establish Islamic dominance worldwide by infiltrating Western institutions and creating parallel Islamic governance structures. 

RAIR Foundation USA exposed the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive blueprint for turning America into an Islamic state, the secret 1982 document known as “The Project”, and entered it into the official congressional record for the February 10, 2026, hearing titled “Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & Sharia Law Are Incompatible With the U.S. Constitution.”

The Project bluntly instructs followers to create “parallel” societies within their host countries – explicitly rejecting all assimilation into Western societies – to use “Palestine” as a vehicle for the global Islamic State using jihadi cells, and to engage in “temporary cooperation” with “Islamic movements” and anti-“colonialist” movements (i.e., the Red/Green Axis – a “convergence of Marxism and Islam“), and to permanently refuse friendship or coexistence with Jews.

But it is not just about Jews. The Project is about achieving Islamic rule over the entire world – which includes Christians and all non-Muslims.

The Project was written by exiled disciples of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, the ideological godfather of global jihadism and admirer of Hitler. The Muslim Brotherhood is an innocuously named but sinister global network, which created the ideological backbone for Hamas, the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and many other jihadi groups while inspiring thousands of terror attacks around the world.

Communists Killed By Races Page 152

Dari AWAS ke Rejimen Ke-10” and “Komrad Asi (Rejimen 10): Dalam Denyut Nihilisme Sejarah” - must be viewed with deep concern by all Malaysians who value historical truth, intellectual freedom, and national maturity. 

Head of the 10th Assault Unit located in Kelantan -Rashid Mydin

Both books were reportedly prohibited that they contain elements and ideologies of communism that could undermine public harmony and order. 

This Communist Bitch directly or indirectly was responsible for the deaths of 32 soldiers of Seventh Rangers

These people committed Treason against America, and what they did to Trump using Fraud, and Lies, is to Disgusting for words. These people thought they were To Big, to have to answer for anything they did. Don't put them in jail, put them under the jail, never to be seen again. 

There’s no question that Barack Obama probably Mike Pence, absolutely Nancy Pelosi absolutely James Comey all of these guys, need to be arrested and held in a black site until they can be tried by a military tribunal! You can never have an agreement with a devil!

- George Washington

COMMENT | Rational people have to understand that there is a reason why Madani is playing cat and mouse with the detention of the TikTok user known as “Jorjet Myla” using the Sedition Act.

Nobody with certainty knows what she said that hurt the feelings of the ruling regime, and while social media is filled with first, second, and third-hand knowledge of what she said and screenshots are being passed around and how she said it, there is no official verification of her speech, which warranted a three-day remand and sanction from the state.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. This, in many ways, is the story of Christianity. From the times of Christ, till the present, Christians have had to confront Satan’s two swords—one physical and overt; the other spiritual and covert.

Consider the following excerpt on Christianity’s first three centuries, written by the Father of Church history, Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 263-339):

Like dazzling lights the churches were now shining all over the world, and to the limits of the human race faith in our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ was at its peak [after AD 313, following the rise of Constantine], when the demon who hates the good, sworn enemy of truth and inveterate foe of man’s salvation, turned all his weapons against the Church.

In earlier days he had attacked her with persecutions from without [for about 250 years, beginning with Emperor Nero, AD 63, and ending with Diocletian, AD 311]; but now that he was debarred from this, he resorted to unscrupulous impostors as instruments of spiritual corruption and ministers of destruction, and employed new tactics, contriving by every possible means that impostors and cheats, by cloaking themselves with the same name as our religion [meaning by pretending to be “Christians”], should at one and the same time bring to the abyss of destruction every believer they could entrap, and by their own actions and endeavors turn those ignorant of the Faith away from the path that leads to the message of salvation [4.7; emphasis added].

What is striking about this passage is how well the twofold attack it describes—external physical persecution (from pagan Roman emperors) and internal spiritual subversion (from Arianism and other heresies)—conforms to the rest of Christianity’s 2,000-year-old history and is especially applicable today.

It works as follows: Where possible, Satan possesses his minions to use a physical sword to persecute and slaughter Christians. Where not possible, he uses a spiritual sword to infiltrate and subvert Christianity so that, being themselves possessed, Christians choose death.

As seen, the most obvious and paradigmatic example of physical persecution is that referenced by Eusebius: pagan Rome’s savage persecution of Christians, which erupted from the time of the Apostles in the first century under Nero and sporadically continued till the rise of Constantine the Great, who outlawed religious persecution in the fourth century (specifically with the Edict of Milan, AD 313).

But the physical persecution of Christians continued far after Eusebius’s death in 339. The new persecutor—who, if not necessarily surpassing the quality of Rome’s persecution, has certainly far surpassed its quantity—was and remains Islam.

Writing around 1220—nearly a millennium after Eusebius’s times — James of Vitry, bishop of Acre, described Christianity as “besieged on all sides by enemies.” These enemies were, on the one hand, physical and obvious (Muslims) and on the other, spiritual and subversive (false Christians):

Saracens and pagans undermine the peace of Christendom, tyrants and evil Christians attack the liberty of the Church, and false brothers undermine love... For James and most Christians of the time, the answer was to fight fire with fire — by taking up the Two Swords of Christ:

Against the violence of the pagans and Saracens it [the Church] uses the physical sword [hence the Crusades]. Against tyrants and false brothers it uses a spiritual sword, which it also uses against heretics and schismatics…. Since the Church has two swords, which the Lord said “is enough” [Luke 22:38], one is to be exercised in a spiritual sense by the prelates, the other by princes and military Christians [emphasis added].

As foretold by Ecclesiastes, nothing has since changed. If the same double-pronged attack described by Eusebius was still on display nine centuries later, when James of Vitry was writing, today—a full eight centuries after James—it is worse than ever.

Backdropped by ships in the Strait of Hormuz, damage, according to local witnesses caused by several recent airstrikes during the U.S.-Israel military campaign, is seen on a fishing pier in the port of Qeshm island, Iran

The Iranians entered into the Islamabad discussions exuding confidence that the Americans were suing for peace and that Iran had found and struck the Achilles’ heel of the West by closing the Strait of Hormuz. This revealed the infirmity of the Western Alliance and exploited the consumptive flabbiness of the American public itself with the terrifying spectre of somewhat higher gasoline prices.

As was predicted here, the United States has now shut the Hormuz Strait to Iran so its revenues from the world have abruptly collapsed and as an incidental strategic benefit, between Venezuela and Iran, China has lost much of its oil supply. At the same time, the United States is opening the Strait to other countries and at time of writing the passage of non-Iranian tankers through the strait has risen significantly.

While Friday, Iran declared the Strait open, Trump said the U.S. blockade of Iran put in place last weekend would remain. Minimal research reveals that the United States Navy possesses the ability to open the Strait or close it to whomever it wishes: America has held the scepter of the seas for 85 years.

Having wrung from the Iranians the concession that it would cease to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, by threatening to “destroy its civilization,” which was referred to in American government circles as “bridge and power-plant day,” a fearsome havoc in Iran’s infrastructure but with no implication of extensive civilian casualties, the Americans were, as generally occurs with Iran, affronted by the bad faith of the ayatollahs who purported to close the strait to everyone except themselves and the Chinese, and those who paid them a toll of $1 million per tanker.

Background: On March 16, Khan allowed thousands of Muslims to take over Trafalgar Square, with worshippers sprawled in prostration across the streets as Koran verses, including “Allahu Akbar,” were blared out over megaphones. Many British Christians accused the gathering of being a provocative act of domination over the city’s historically Christian public space. After expressing his disappointment that these Christians were not behaving like doormats, Khan said,

You know, our religion is about submission, it’s about peace. I began my speech with a greeting of peace, asalima alikum, may the peace and blessing of our creator be upon you. What can be more peaceful than that?

On the one hand, these words are essentially true and accurate; on the other, they do not, at all, mean what he wants Western people to think they mean.

Welcome to the all-important but obscure doctrine of tawriya. In what follows, I explain this Muslim teaching and then show how it applies to Khan’s words.

What is Tawriya?

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, “hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion.” Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Koran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, double-entendre best describes tawriya’s function. For example, John asks Dave if he can borrow $20, and Dave says, “Man, I don’t have a penny in my pocket!” Although John will assume that Dave is saying he has no money on him, Dave may well have a wad of $20 bills—though he literally has no pennies on him. According to the Islamic doctrine of tawriya, Dave did not lie.

In the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid (based on scholarly consensus): “Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice” (injustice as defined by sharia, of course, not Western standards). Otherwise, it is permissible even for a Muslim to swear when lying through tawriya. Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof (saqf); when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by saying “by roof, I meant the open sky.” This is legitimate. “After all,” Munajid adds, “Koran 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof [saqf].”

Here is another common example of tawriya in the West. Fourteen years ago I exposed an Arabic language Youtube video (since removed) where a cleric says that it’s a “great sin” for Muslims to acknowledge Christmas. That said, Muslims living in the West can say to Christians during the Christmas season, “I wish you the best.” The logic? Christians, continues the sheikh, will “understand it to mean you’re wishing them best in terms of their [Christmas] celebration.” But—here the wily sheikh giggles as he explains—“by saying I wish you the best, you mean in your heart I wish you become a Muslim!”

In a canonical hadith, Muhammad says: “If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave” (Sunan Abu Dawud): Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense.

Similarly, on the popular Islam Web, where Muslims submit questions and Islamic authorities respond with a fatwa, a girl poses her moral dilemma: her father has explicitly told her that, whenever the phone rings, she is to answer saying “he’s not here.” The fatwa solves her problem: she is free to lie, but when she says, “he’s not here,” she must mean he is not in the same room, or not directly in front of her.

In Egypt, archaeologists have just unearthed a 1,600-year-old Christian monastic site, complete with wall paintings and a Greek inscription. A few weeks before it, another, equally as old, monastic complex was also discovered in Egypt.

These are not isolated finds. They are part of a growing pattern: the steady unearthing of monasteries, churches, and Christian inscriptions across the Middle East—silent witnesses to a time when Christianity was not marginal, but dominant. And yet, as these discoveries accumulate, so too do efforts to reinterpret them—not as evidence of a dramatic civilizational rupture, but as proof of something more palatable.

Take, for example, yet another recent find—in the Arabian Peninsula, no less, the birthplace and home of Islam: in 2022, archaeologists in the United Arab Emirates unearthed the ruins of yet another Christian monastery. Radiocarbon dating suggested that its Christian community may have thrived there around the year AD 534 — meaning nearly a century before the rise of Islam in 622 (Year One of the Muslim calendar).

“It is an extremely rare discovery,” said Prof. Tim Power of the UAE University, who was part of the team that unearthed the monastery. “It is an important reminder of a lost chapter of Arab history.”

To be sure, historians have long known that both Christians and Jews lived throughout the Arabian Peninsula prior to the advent of Islam, though having archaeological backing is obviously substantial. This is, moreover, the second such monastery to be unearthed in the UAE. All in all, six ancient monasteries have thus far been discovered along the shores of the Arabian Gulf.

Ultimately, all of these findings confirm that what happened to the Arabian Peninsula is what happened to the broader Middle East and North Africa. In the seventh century, the entire region was overwhelmingly Christian majority. Once the jihad against the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) was proclaimed, c. 630, all of these formerly Christian regions were swallowed up and Islamized. In the words of Bernard Lewis:

We tend nowadays to forget that for approximately a thousand years, from the advent of Islam in the seventh century until the second siege of Vienna in 1683, Christian Europe was under constant threat from Islam, the double threat of conquest and conversion. Most of the new Muslim domains were wrested from Christendom. Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa were all Christian countries, no less, indeed rather more, than Spain and Sicily. All this left a deep sense of loss and a deep fear [emphasis added].

Another Coptic monastery predating the Islamic conquest, Beheira Governorate. 

Another Coptic monastery predating the Islamic conquest, Beheira Governorate.

The finding of all these monasteries is further unsurprising when one considers how utterly Christian the Middle East was. According to John Cassian, a Christian monk from modern-day Romania who visited Egypt about two-and-a-half centuries before the Arab invasion, “the traveler from Alexandria in the north to Luxor in the south would have in his ears along the whole journey [about 600 miles], the sounds of prayers and hymns of the monks, scattered in the desert, from the monasteries and from the caves, from monks, hermits, and anchorites.”

Today, Egypt—which, prior to its invasion and subsequent conquest by Islam, was one of the most thoroughly Christian nations in the world—has only a very few monasteries, and even these are not beyond threat. In 2025, a controversial court ruling placed the land of Saint Catherine’s Monastery—the oldest continuously operating Christian monastery in the world—under Egyptian state ownership, raising fears that monks could ultimately be dispossessed of property they had held centuries before Muhammad was born. The dispute escalated to the point of international diplomatic intervention, even as development projects began transforming the surrounding sacred landscape.

Speaking of Muhammad, much of what befell Christianity in general and monasteries in particular throughout the Middle East can be traced to him. The prophet’s deathbed wish was that “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” Muslims have always interpreted this to mean that only Islam can be practiced on the Peninsula (hence why modern-day fatwas continue to call for the destruction of any church found in Arabia).