RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/human-rights-ngos-a-crisis-of-trust-the-root-causes-and-recommended-remedies/

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are facing a deepening crisis of trust, with confidence in them steadily declining on a number of fronts across both developed and developing countries according to survey data. This erosion of trust threatens their ability to operate effectively. This report seeks to analyse the origins of this crisis of trust and offer targeted policy recommendations for NGOs. If implemented, these measures should help restore confidence in the sector, allowing it to carry out its vital work more effectively.  

The crisis of trust has worsened over the last few years. For instance, significant doubt surrounds the conduct and research of human rights NGOs towards Israel, particularly since the 7 October attacks. As Michael Powell tells us in his recent The Atlantic article: “organizations that explicitly valued impartiality and independence have become stridently critical of Israel.” In the same article, Powell argues that human rights organisations frequently apply double standards. He highlights how once-impartial groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which originally pursued clear and principled objectives, have become increasingly biased – particularly in their approach to the Israel–Hamas war. 

This report does not aim to assess the validity of the accusations of bias against these NGOs. Instead, it argues that the mere presence and frequency of such comments contribute to a substantial erosion of trust in the NGO sector. In a conflict where the stakes are so high, and given the critical role that NGOs play in protecting human rights both in times of peace and war, it is essential to find a way to address these concerns and restore genuine confidence in the work of these organisations.  

Another factor contributing to this erosion of trust is the increasing perception of double standards. When NGOs focus on and push for the highest ethical standards for Western companies, they create a perception that they are inadvertently distorting developing markets and contributing to worsening human rights conditions on the ground – as their activities result in critical strategic assets and operations being taken over by Chinese, Russian or other similarly less scrupulous entities.  

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/11/the-power-in-a-papal-name/

What’s in a name?

We all know that Juliet gave us this classic line, noting that (I paraphrase) even if you called a rose a hippopotamus, it would still smell as sweet as it did before you called it a river horse.

Things did not work out so well for that young Capulet, however, and the world at large has often taken a different view of names, according them an almost talismanic power.

Is that rational? You might as well ask, “Is the Pope Catholic?” which brings me to my theme.

When, to the surprise of many, the Chicago-born Robert Francis Prevost got the nod from the College of Cardinals, the white smoke had not yet dissipated before the world was atwitter about the name the first American Pope had chosen: Leo.

What did it mean? I canvassed several knowledgeable friends about our new Pope. The responses ranged from cautious optimism all the way to avid enthusiasm. “All early signs are very positive,” quoth one pal who worked in the Vatican for Pope Benedict. “I think he will be a great pope.”

Given the source, I take that as a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

Many respondents, and much of the general media commentary, noted Prevost’s choice of “Leo” as his papal name. Was the choice significant? Most thought it was. And if it was significant, what did it mean?

Prevost is now Pope Leo XIV. Much media commentary speculated that Prevost chose the name in homage to (or inspired by) Pope Leo XIII, whose papacy ran from 1878 until his death in 1903.

Leo XIII has become known as “the Social Pope,” the “Pope of Workers.” His famous (in Catholic circles) encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) was both a plea to address “the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class” and a defense of private property. Leo rejected both socialism (“it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected”) and the exploitation of the poor.

It is certainly possible that Prevost had Leo XIII in mind when he chose the name “Leo.” But I like to think that he might have harkened back to Leo the Great, the first Pope Leo, whose pontificate ran from AD 440 to 461.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21585/christians-persecuted

The top 13 of the 50 nations on the World Watch List 2025 are characterized by the worst form of persecution: “extreme.” They are: 1) North Korea, 2) Somalia, 3) Yemen, 4) Libya, 5) Sudan, 6) Eritrea, 7) Nigeria, 8) Pakistan, 9) Iran, 10) Afghanistan, 11) India, 12) Saudi Arabia, and 13) Myanmar.

[M]ost of the “extreme persecution” meted out to Christians in nine of these 13 worst nations continues to come either from Islamic oppression, or occurs in nations with large Muslim populations. Significantly, this means that approximately 70% of the absolute worst (“extreme”) persecution around the globe takes place under the aegis, or in the name, of Islam.

[T]he persecution of Christians by Muslims is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that ruler or regime. Persecution of the “other” in Islam is part of its history, doctrines and socio-political makeup — hence its tenacity and ubiquity

“More believers are killed for their faith in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world.” — World Watch List 2025.

“[R]oughly a quarter of all blasphemy accusations [in Pakistan] target Christians, who make up just 1.8 percent of the population. Blasphemy laws carry a death sentence.” — World Watch List 2025.

“In Afghanistan, leaving Islam… and conversion is punishable by death under Islamic law. This has been increasingly enforced since the Taliban took control of the country in 2021.” — World Watch List 2025.

Even in nations that would appear to be friendly or at least neutral to Christianity, such as Cuba, Mexico and Nicaragua, Christians are being abused for their faith…

In 2024, around the world, 4,476 Christians — more than 12 a day on average — were “killed for faith related reasons.” Another 4,744 Christians were arrested or illegally detained, and 7,679 churches and other Christian institutions were attacked, often destroyed.

Overall, the global persecution of Christians has reached unprecedented levels. “More than 380m Christians suffer high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith,” according to the World Watch List 2025 (WWL) published earlier this year by the international human rights organization, Open Doors.

Every year, the WWL ranks the top 50 nations in which Christians are the most persecuted for their faith. The data is compiled by thousands of grassroots workers and external experts. The latest edition of the WWL covers October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/10/why-regime-change-in-iran-is-becoming-inevitable/

he Islamic Republic of Iran is facing unprecedented pressure from both within and outside its borders. Internally, economic collapse, widespread political disillusionment, and mass rejection of religious authoritarianism have profoundly weakened the regime’s legitimacy. Externally, Iran’s regional influence is diminishing as its proxies suffer military defeats and diplomatic isolation. Although the precise timing is uncertain, the convergence of these pressures makes regime change in Iran increasingly likely. For Western policymakers, this is not the time for short-term crisis management—it is the time to prepare for a democratic transition.

Internal Fault Lines
Popular Rejection of the Regime

Forty-six years after the Islamic Revolution, Iranian public sentiment has turned sharply against the ruling elite. A 2022 survey by the Group for Analyzing and Measuring Attitudes in Iran GAMAAN found that nearly 90% of Iranians do not support the Islamic Republic as a system of governance. Additionally, 73% of respondents favor the separation of religion from politics—directly opposing the regime’s theocratic foundations. Calls for secular democracy and respect for human rights transcend ideological boundaries. Opposition comes from a wide range of constituencies—women’s rights activists, students, laborers, ethnic minorities, monarchists, secular republicans, and even traditional religious groups. The 2022–2023 “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests, sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini while in morality police custody, revealed a society no longer willing to endure repression. The Islamic regime is increasingly unable to enforce its compulsory hijab law, as millions of Iranian women openly defy it. At the same time, hardline factions within the regime are pressuring authorities to crack down and strictly implement the law. Yet the regime finds itself paralyzed—unable either to grant women the freedom to choose their clothing or to return to the mass arrests and repression of earlier years. The gulf between state and society has grown irreparably wide. Reform is no longer seen as a viable option. Today, the Iranian people themselves pose the greatest threat to the regime’s survival—more so than any external actor.

Economic Collapse and Systemic Corruption

https://mexiconewsreport.com/index.php/2025/05/10/the-tragic-story-of-ivan-morales-corrales/

The tragic story of recently-murdered Ivan Morales Corrales displays the power and ruthlessness of a Mexican drug cartel.

Ivan Morales Corrales was a Mexican federal agent.

On May 1st, 2015, Morales was part of a secret mission in Jalisco state to capture Nemesio Ruben “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes, leader of the Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG).

There were five helicopters on the mission. The one Morales Corrales was in was hit by RPGs and crashed and burned. Of the 18 persons on board the aircraft 9 survived.

Morales survived but was horribly burned, with second and third degree burns over 70% of his body, after which he underwent 15 reconstructive surgeries.

In December of 2015, Morelos received the Police Medal of Merit from then-President Enrique Pena Nieto.

2015 – President Pena Nieto and Ivan Morales Corrales. Source: Univisión

In September of 2024, Morelos was in the U.S. where he testified in the trial of
Ruben Oseguera González  “El Menchito”, the son of “El Mencho”.

El Menchito had actually given the order to attack the helicopter and was later arrested in Mexico and extradited to the United States.

On March 7th, 2025, El Menchito was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for international drug trafficking.

On April 30th, 2025, nearly 10 years after the attack on the helicopter, Morales and his wife were ambushed and shot to death in Temixco, state of Morelos.

So the CJNG got its revenge on a brave Mexican who had already suffered greatly in the Cartel War.

https://pjmedia.com/david-solway-2/2025/05/09/separation-or-collapse-which-comes-first-n4939639

The province of Alberta has a legitimate grievance with the ROC (Rest of Canada).

According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, since the inception of Canada’s equalization program in 1957, which sees the wealthier provinces subsidizing their less fortunate counterparts, Alberta has made a net contribution of $67 billion, $2.9 billion alone in 2021 — which in turn represents only a portion of the province’s immense financial contribution to federal coffers and the governments and residents of other provinces. 

The Fraser Institute notes that the equalization drain represents “just a small part of the province’s outsized contribution to confederation in recent years.” It calculates that “the gap between Albertans’ contribution to federal revenues and federal expenditures plus transfers to the province, totalled $20.5 billion annually in 2017/18. And this measure excludes Albertans’ disproportionate cumulative contribution to the Canada Pension Plan, which on net totalled $2.9 billion in 2017.”

Albertans had voted in a referendum to abolish the system of equalization payments to other provinces. Speaking of transfer payments, it was former Premier Jason Kenney who made that issue a referendum question. Alberta voted yes, an affirmative totally ignored by Ottawa and the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are doing everything in their power to eviscerate Alberta’s energy industry, the source of its prosperity and a major contributor to Canada’s overall solvency, by shutting down pipeline projects, banning tanker activity along the coast of British Columbia, and levying anti-emission, net-zero protocols designed to strangle the province’s economic output. The cognitive dissonance is appalling. 

Obviously, it is not only Alberta and Saskatchewan that are at risk, but the rest of the country as well, as the Liberal administration under Mark Carney moves to effectively collapse the country’s economic output. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, and now the UK are the models for a Canadian makeover. Debt, deficit, money printing, and capital flight are the inevitable results of the net-zero fantasy. Canada is intent on committing economic suicide.

As emeritus professor of economics Steve Ambler points out, “Private investment in Canada was already hemorrhaging under the Trudeau administration. Even larger federal deficits under the new Liberal administration, and its continued emphasis on managing the economy from the top down by administrative fiat, will not improve the situation. Instead, investment funds will continue to migrate to the US where tax rates and the business climate in general are more advantageous.” Indeed, an internal government report from Policy Horizons Canada warns of a “near-collapse of Canada’s economy, trigger[ing] a mental health crisis and more grassroots approaches to housing and food—including families foraging and hunting wildlife for food.”  

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/05/09/the-british-elites-have-capitulated-to-islamo-censorship/

Does freedom of speech include the right to blaspheme? In 21st-century Britain, you’d have thought the answer would be ‘yes, obviously’. Our last blasphemy conviction was in 1977. England’s blasphemy law was abolished in 2008, having been a dead letter for decades. The centuries-long struggle for free speech in this country, as in so many others, was built on defaming gods, kings, clerics, prophets. Without the right to blaspheme, there is no right to speak freely. But in this identitarian age, what was once taken for granted is fast melting into air.

In Britain, in 2025, whether or not you should be able to criticise a religion, mock its practices, burn its texts, is an alarmingly live issue. And when I say ‘a religion’, you know which one I’m talking about. This debate has lit up again this week, following the charges brought against Hamit Coskun for burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London in February. His one-man protest against the Islamist turn of Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been chalked up as a religiously motivated public-order offence, drawing the condemnation of shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick and causing an X feud between two MPs. Rupert Lowe – the member for the Very Online right – condemned our backdoor blasphemy laws, while Adnan Hussain – one of the so-called Gaza independents who rode a wave of sectarian, anti-Israel bile into parliament at the last General Election – accused Lowe of singling out Muslims under the guise of freedom of speech.

Hussain’s arguments are as banal as they are illiberal. Free speech isn’t absolute, ackshually. Those who claim to care about Koran-burners are really just racists. Do you know who also burned books? Hitler! What most sticks in the craw is how depressingly pedestrian they are – not simply among the ‘Gaza independents’, but also the liberal elites, who long ago sacrificed genuine liberalism on the altar of multiculturalism. It is their cowardice and relativism that has brought us to this point: where the old Christian blasphemy laws may be long gone, but informal Islamic blasphemy laws are fast taking shape, with hate-speech laws refashioned to forcefield a faith from criticism.

Those shocked to see a case like Coskun’s haven’t been paying attention. Ever since the Rushdie affair, we have witnessed an unholy alliance between Islamist censors, a cowardly political establishment and an increasingly identitarian left. The first protest against The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie’s ‘blasphemous’ novel which earned him the Ayatollah’s fatwa and almost cost him his life, was not on the subcontinent or in the Middle East, but in Bolton on 2 December 1988. While this movement never succeeded in getting Rushdie’s novel banned in Britain, or extending Britain’s blasphemy laws to cover Islam, it put the fear of Allah into anyone who dared publish a book, display a cartoon or make a statement that some perma-outraged prick, claiming to speak on behalf of Muslims, might deem to be offensive or heretical. This haunts us to this day, as the still-disappeared Batley school teacher or the recent – mercifully foiled – attempts to murder ex-Muslim Hatun Tash show.