Social Items

TPQ
Church And State ★ I’m not a practicing Catholic—not because I reject the teachings of Christ, but because the institutional Church has, too often across centuries, including the 20th Century, betrayed those teachings through its complicity in the most egregious human rights violations. 

Yet I still believe in the moral vision attributed to Jesus: the sanctity of human dignity, the triumph of kindness over cruelty, and each of our obligation to protect the vulnerable.

These are values that transcend religion. They are the bedrock of any humane society, and in the case of Americans, a shared aspiration of moral behavior.

Today, Christian Nationalists distort that vision. Their rhetoric and policies—especially around immigration—stand in opposition to the Gospel’s call to welcome the stranger. Their support for militarized deportation forces, like ICE under Trump, reveals a theology of exclusion, not compassion.

Pope Leo’s recent message to U.S. bishops offers a stark moral contrast. He urged them to speak out forcefully against deportations and to act in unity for the protection of migrants. His words were clear:

1. Those who condone inhumane treatment of immigrants contradict the very essence of a pro-life ethic. 2. Every migrant should be welcomed as if welcoming Christ himself.

Immigration And Human Dignity Needs Moral Clarity

Right Wing Watch 👀 Written by Kyle Mantyla.


Far-right commentator Joshua Haymes recently posted a video in which he beseeched his fellow Christian nationalists to learn to defend the institution of slavery because the Bible makes it clear that "it is not inherently evil to own another human being."

Haymes—who hosts a podcast with pastor Brooks Potteiger of Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, a far-right church located outside of Nashville, TN, that is aligned with Christian nationalist pastor Douglas Wilson and counts Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as a member—was reacting to a recent Jubilee video in which conservative Christian commentator Allie Beth Stuckey debated 20 liberals.

Haymes was unimpressed with Stuckey's response when challenged about the Bible's sanction of the practice of slavery, warning that offering up anything short of a vigorous defense of slavery opens the door to challenging the authority of the Bible on all sorts of issues.

"The institution of slavery is not inherently evil," Haymes insisted.

"It is not inherently evil to own another human being. It is very important that every Christian affirm what I just said," he continued. "Not only should they affirm it, every Christian in today's society should be able to defend what I just said."

Christian Nationalist Commentator Joshua Haymes Says 'Slavery Is Not Inherently Evil'

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Eight Hundred And Fifty Seven

 

A Morning Thought @ 2932

 

A Morning Thought @ 2931

Matt Bowen ✍ I’ve been an avid reader of The Quill for quite some time now. 

I’ve never commented before and I had previously intended to pen some articles on various topics to submit for consideration of publication on The Quill, however, my lack of writing experience along with time constraints has meant that thus far, the articles I intended to write have not yet come to fruition. Except this one.

After reading the article submitted by John Coulter regarding Autism and the MMR Vaccine I was inspired to immediately begin to pen this response. Autism and the history of Autism is a topic I’ve spent many years researching, it’s something I can talk about at length. (1)

In John’s article he touched upon how the mere mention of vaccines, in particular the MMR vaccine and Autism in the same sentence is considered taboo, often met with ridicule, with a list of derogatory labels applied to anyone who may suggest a link between the two. It’s true, it happens, but, now imagine the reaction to those that might suggest that Autism doesn’t even exist at all. That would be quite the shock wouldn’t it. Not just a shock, it's something to some that is so offensive, so ridiculous and inconceivable that one would be very lucky for anybody to even hear the argument out.

I have friends and family that have received an Autism diagnosis. I also have experience working with children that have an Autism diagnosis, all of varying severity on the spectrum. And at various stages throughout my life, I have even been encouraged to seek a diagnosis of Autism for myself. I’m sure many readers will know of someone, without too many degrees of separation, that have a diagnosis for Autism. John in his article also detailed his own experience with a family member diagnosed Autistic. So how could or should such a ludicrous suggestion that it doesn’t exist be given any credence whatsoever?

This article would be far too long to include the entire history of Autism. Although it is important we take a brief look at certain parts of it.

The actual word “Autism” according to Wikipedia is said to have first been introduced by Eugen Bleuler in 1911. At this stage it was still linked to schizophrenia, which itself at the time was a condition that was splintered off of dementia. It should be noted that the medical names given at this time in history were different to how the exact same terms are applied today. I should also mention that although the term Autism is said to have been coined at this time, there had been publications of various observations and descriptions of conditions with similar criteria dating back as early as the 1700's.

Between 1911 and the 1940's other people of note who contributed to research surrounding Autism were Russian Psychiatrist Grunya Sukhareva, who was said to be the first person to pathologize Autism, and Austrian physicians Leo Kanner, and Hans Asperger, the latter’s name would later go on to be used for Aspergers Syndrome although Hans did not coin the term himself. In 1943, Kanner diagnosed Donald Triplett. Known as "Case One", Triplett is said to be the first person to receive a diagnosis of Autism, some thirty years after the term was said to have first been coined.

I can’t include a full write-up of every single person involved in the research and evolution of Autism -  you can certainly look into them in your own time. I would very much encourage anyone interested to do so, as you will find that many of the people involved have dubious backgrounds to say the least. You might, as I have found, begin to see rather interesting links appear every time any revision is made to the definition of Autism as well as other mental and psychological disorders as the years progress. It’s very important to consider the dates in relation to what daily life would have been like, how the political landscape was, what other major events were happening in the world at these times, what new substances, drugs, medicines, pharmacological additions were being made, how medical practices and research was conducted, as we all should well know that many medical practices and human research conducted in the past is today considered archaic and highly unethical and very rightly so. Luckily we have moved on from the archaic as science has progressed, and thank goodness in today’s eternally moral population unethical human experimentation is consigned to the past, or is it?
 
Well that's a topic that can have a much more in-depth discussion another time. Anyone interested in a refresher course on unethical human experimentation and just how cruel one human being can be to another, can find a list here and I'm sure there are many more examples that are not on that list.(2)

The diagnosis of Autism continued to evolve over the years to what is now called the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As John pointed out in his article, there has been a rather large increase lately in people being given an Autism diagnosis, that only a decade or so in the past would not have received one. Reasons given for this by so called professionals, or as I like to say prompted by “The Narrator”, is because many conditions that received an alternate terminology have been grouped together to form this larger spectrum that is ASD, which is fair enough I suppose. But also claims are made that they have learnt so much more about the condition, they are just so much better at recognising it and making interventions. This is quite the point of contention.

Presently ASD can be broadly split into two camps. The far less severe camp, where many people, buoyed on by quite a lot of "celebrity" involvement and endorsement, claim that they are just Neuro-Divergent, they say Autism is "my gift", "it's my superpower". They advocate against cures or treatments for Autism, as they believe this superpower of theirs does not need a cure, nor should it even be considered a disorder. I myself am not exactly sure whether it could, or should be described as a power, let alone a superpower. Nor do I know how this power manifests or is used to any effect by the claimant. Should you ever push the claimant to provide a precise answer with any sensible meaning to this, you will quite swiftly be in receipt of your own label, a derogatory one of course, and you’ll find the conversation breaks down rather rapidly. Certainly with current metrics we use today to measure ability, there doesn’t seem to be an abundance of these superpowered individuals topping the charts. That could simply be down to outdated metrics, or perhaps they just need to be given more time and opportunity to come to the forefront.

Then there is the camp where the condition is much more severe, and they view the first camp with utter disdain, relaying how their child is suffering on a daily basis, and they themselves are suffering on a daily basis struggling to cope with the care of the child, heartbroken at witnessing how their child suffers. They say it's not a gift or a superpower, and if they had to cut off their own legs in order for a cure to be found for their loved one suffering, they'd do so in a heartbeat. I can fully empathize with that. Should a new wonder cure ever be proclaimed any time soon, caution should be advised, as anguish is typically one of the heartstrings plucked to gently nudge, or coerce those towards experimental treatment. As hard as it may be, one should try and remove the emotion from any decision making and ask yourself, do you really want to be the person first in line?

Currently there is no cure.

Wikipedia cites both the NHS and Autism.org.uk stating that "curing or otherwise treating Autism may not be an appropriate goal". Tell that to the members of Camp Two.
 
Again taken directly from Wikipedia, "Autistic people may be prescribed medication to manage specific co-occurring conditions or behaviours" not actually prescribed for Autism itself. "More than half of Autistic children in the United States are prescribed psychoactive drugs or anticonvulsants. Commonly used drug classes include antidepressants, stimulants, and antipsychotics".

This brings me to the first substantial exhibit.

Here a debate is had, titled "Psychiatrists and the Pharma Industry are to Blame for the Current ‘Epidemic’ of Mental Disorders".(3)
 
In this debate you will see the panel for the motion, which includes Psychoanalyst Darian Leader, in my opinion, give quite compelling evidence to strongly suggest that indeed Psychiatrists, at least some of them, and the Pharma industry may very well have a lot to answer for. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately I believe that the audience who were voting on the motion may have been a tad biased, and quite possibly swayed by their dislike of Mr Will Self, who also in my opinion, could perhaps have formulated his arguments a little better. He was quite clearly emotional - that much is evident. Also in this debate please note the mentions of the DSM.

Today, generally the criteria to satisfy a diagnosis of Autism is governed by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The ICD came first in 1893, first under the original name of the International Classification of Causes of Death before being changed in revision number six in 1948 to it's current name when the World Health Organisation assumed responsibility for it's publication. The DSM began in 1952 evolving from psychiatric hospital statistics, as well as from a United States Army manual. It's rather interesting that the DSM would evolve from a military manual and again the dates are important. Both the ICD and the DSM are updated regularly after what used to be a cycle of roughly 5-10 years, to more frequent revisions happening in more modern times. The ICD is broader in scope than the DSM and there are some other differences related specifically to Autism, but these differences are quite negligible and mostly arbitrary, with both manuals tending to mirror each other closely. If one were to look here at the Wikipedia page and follow the citations, it goes into detail specifically about the many criticisms that the DSM has received.(4)

Cue the next exhibit here. (5) You will see Psychotherapist Dr James Davies give a very in depth analysis on the history of the DSM. He even managed to speak personally with some of the major people responsible for forming some it’s editions, whilst also touching on the involvement of the Pharma Industry. I consider it one of the best and most important presentations for anyone with any interest in medical studies, in particular with relation to mental health and diagnostics, seeing as both the DSM and ICD are the backbone of criteria for main stream diagnostics. Such a thorough and detailed lecture highlights very serious problems with Psychiatry, Psychology and the Pharmacologic Industry, to the point that one really ought at the very least, to start raising eyebrows at what The Narrator has many people believing. One ought to question their own beliefs on the subjects, and ask yourself, what do you really actually know?

In this exhibit here  for The British Psychological Society, the Psychiatrist, Psychotherapist and Author Professor Sami Timimi presents his own compelling argument, stating that Autism is a social construct and does not even exist at all.(6) He questions the benefits of assigning labels and ponders whether these labels could be adverse instead. Timimi outlines that symptoms of Autism need not be pathologized, and the way in which they are pathologized does not happen with any other type of physical condition, disease, illness or abnormality, resulting in a contradiction to integral and robust scientific method. He presents that currently there is no possible way to be able to positively confirm the validity of a diagnosis, there are no blood tests, there are no genetic markers, no clear indications from neural imaging, there is absolutely no empirical or scientific evidence for Autism’s existence. Timimi points out that Autism is descriptive rather than explanatory, thus only a fallacy by way of circular reasoning remains. Here he presents the same argument expanded with additional history and context for the Third Systemic Autism Conference.(7)

So what does that mean for anybody that has an Autism diagnosis?

I would suggest that what these Doctors and Professors are alluding to, is that if we take the overly simplistic division of the two camps mentioned earlier. Those in Camp One are so ambiguous in their presentation that they can almost be completely dismissed as not having anything wrong with them at all, outside of what can easily be described as just a difference in personality, with any presenting symptoms to suggest more serious problems that might be reported or otherwise observed being a result of Iatrogenesis, brought on by different factors including but not limited to medications, and exasperated by receiving a label, or diagnosis as it's currently called. They are positing that receiving these labels whilst anecdotally bringing comfort and relief to some, can more often that not cause more harm than good. It could even be considered as a form of Munchausen syndrome, by self or by proxy.
Receiving some sort of diagnosis or "label" has become fashionable, marketable and thus profitable, helped along rapidly by celebrity endorsement especially in the USA, but now spreading at pace to the rest of the world, where some people seem very eager to receive their own label and using this label as some sort of "get out of jail free card" to excuse what would otherwise be considered inexcusable societal behaviour. Certainly in these cases, labels such as grandiose, narcissist, even sociopath could just as easily fit the bill. Interestingly enough, another controversy over the DSM erupted when the committee on personality disorders for the 5th Edition recommended the removal of Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the manual.

However, by contrast, labels related to neuro-divergence are not allowed to be challenged nor allowed to receive any doubts or criticism even from any other medical experts, but rather the person presenting it is supposed to be confirmed, accommodated, congratulated, and heralded as a role-model that's helping and inspiring all those others out there that are “different” or struggling too. Proudly declaring, often with the case of celebrities and influencers very publicly, that they are “neuro-divergent”, meaning their neurological function is not typical, not normal, and normal is boring, it’s ordinary, meaning they are extraordinary, they are gifted, they have a superpower, and that’s something to desire, that’s something to boast about. 

However, in reality, there is no neurological baseline, even with the closest possible genetic similarities, that being a set of twins. In the wider population, one can talk about a neurological average, but averages are a mathematical construct, often not existing in reality. If there is no baseline, it means we are all different, which of course is very true. We are all different. So, if we are all different, does this mean we are all neuro-divergent? If we are all divergent, then the definition itself loses it’s entire meaning. Divergent from what exactly if a baseline does not exist? Certainly we are all neurologically different, and this difference can indeed be described as a spectrum, but for what purpose and to what end? It would mean that the entire population is on “The Spectrum”, in which case assigning a label to every individual would only add to the ever increasing confusion on the topic. There was, and is, no need to rebrand the old-fashioned label we used to have for explaining that everyone is different, which was the very plain and boring label of “normality”. Being different is normal, no two people are the same, similar maybe, but never the same.

For those in Camp Two, there is no question that there is some severe underlying condition or disorder as the symptoms presented are very apparent. The medical profession could make improvements by reducing the spectrum significantly to only include the more severe cases, or perhaps by giving these more severe cases a new name. Whilst initially this could possibly be confusing, it could actually prove to be beneficial too, as Autism has become diluted to the point that it’s detracting from people that genuinely suffer. The label "Autism" from it's conception to present day throughout any of its iterations in history is insufficient as a diagnosis, as again it offers nothing more than a label due to the fact that there are no existing tests which can confirm the presence of "Autism". Nor does it offer any solution, as there is no effective medication or cure to be had. Rather than receiving a diagnosis of Autism and doctors saying, "well sorry, here's some pills that we know won't change anything, and that's it from us, nothing more we can do, no more investigation necessary", I would suggest investigation is indeed necessary, as the possibility remains that the symptoms are caused by another underlying condition, one that could be tested for, one in which a cure might be found, one in which symptoms mirror those that we currently associate with Autism and perhaps have been misdiagnosed as such.

The criteria has indeed widened to include many more individuals, but the criteria being far too wide is something that many professionals in the field have been vocal about for some time. But like John has found with mentioning MMR vaccine and Autism in the same breath, should you question The Narrator about anything, you will find yourself possibly losing your job, being derogatorily labelled, ridiculed, demonised, de-platformed, funding removed or flat out ignored, which results in a reluctance from some to speak their mind or present their case. This is occurring with increasing frequency, and not just on the subject of mental health, but also throughout all other areas of Science.

This idea that you just follow the science sounds good in theory, but when the actual scientists are not doing that themselves, then what is someone with less scientific acumen left to believe? Complaints have been raised about this multiple times by multiple people for decades, by many quite prominent in their field, with subjects such as Physics, History, Archaeology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Pharmacology, Neurology, Epidemiology and many more.

The Grievance Study Affair, taken from the Wikipedia page here.(8)

Related to a group of Authors that in 2017-2018 worked together to purposefully submit bogus papers relating to certain topics that are currently the flavour of choice, to “highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields”. Four of the papers were published, others were considered. I won’t even mention what the titles of these papers are, you can view them yourself. Interestingly, some of the criticism levelled at the hoax included; From Daniel Engber, “we know from long experience that expert peer review offers close to no protection against outright data fraud", and from Evolutionary Biologist Carl T. Bergstrom, “peer review is not designed to remove fraud or even absurd ideas”. To me that sounds more like affirmation of the groups initial analysis rather than criticism. Indeed peer review is another topic that is receiving more and more complaints of late, and perhaps rightly so.

As another example of problems in Science, Here is Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder detailing how she lost her affiliation with Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy due to her speaking freely on certain topics that The Narrator doesn't currently agree with.(9) Sabine has spoken out many times about the issues regarding "The Science" including fake papers and scams (10 )that are occurring in order to artificially increase citations and here she mentions how this problem is spreading.(11)

She along with other scientists have been smeared for speaking out about the incidences of gatekeeping, bullying, attempts at de-platforming and otherwise demonising anyone that doesn’t toe the narrative line, regardless of whether their science is actually sound. Lets not forget all the prominent scientists involved with the Great Barrington Declaration. Doesn’t it seem absurd that anybody who claims to be so certain in their own scientific beliefs or otherwise, would find it necessary to try and completely shut down and dismiss any alternative discourse or evidence to the contrary? Science is supposed to consider evidence, and make appropriate changes whenever new evidence suggests it should. Science is not supposed to censor, nor is it supposed to be reflexively dismissive.

Does the MMR vaccine have any causal links with Autism?

I don't know. But the point is, neither do majority of the people that instantly dismiss a link between the two. If such a thing as Autism actually exists, and anyone has any credible evidence or research to show a link between MMR vaccines and Autism, I believe it should be considered and held up to the correct honest scientific scrutiny rather than being dismissed summarily. The scientific community are much harder to sway from certain ideas than many people realise. Even when evidence is presented, the task will increase with exponential difficulty when there is no evidence at all. It can happen in reality that something is true or exists without there being any available proof. The trouble here is when one tries to convince another of what is true without that proof or evidence, at the very least you would need to have a structurally sound theory as a solid foundation to build upon. Perhaps if John writes another article on the MMR vaccine he can include citations of any research he has come across. As it's his belief, I'll let him make the argument.

I will agree with John in that I believe one should always have the freedom of choice to decide whether they wish to refuse vaccinations or other treatments. As history has shown, for that matter very recent history, it’s not too inconceivable that in the very near future, the choice a person has of receiving or refusing any medical intervention will be removed entirely from them. As recently as year 2020, some quite vocally and actively called for forced vaccinations. Although as far as I’m aware, no physical force was used in the “western world”, that’s not to say it wasn’t under consideration. There were other methods aside from physical force that were used, involving a highly aggressive campaign adopting alternate forms of manipulation, which some say not only went against the principal of informed consent, but shattered the boundaries. Calls for vaccine passports were made, and these passports are still very much on the agenda. This has the real possibility to widen in scope. As we can see with Autism how the criteria increased to include ever more individuals, what’s not to say that a central authority some day might decide that any citizen they choose, in particular those that don’t comply with the central authority, are not actually rebellious by conscious free thought alone, but rather they have an illness, a condition, one that requires intervention, a cure, a cure that the central authority can readily supply freely to all, and will do so by any means necessary. How many people in the last 41 years are now starting to believe 2+2=5? Are we in, or entering into, a time where perhaps we’ll see regular scheduled flights over the cuckoo’s nest, and as a result be faced with ever increasing medical authoritarianism? Signs are there. And on that note, for anyone interested in a segway that still holds some relevance to topics discussed in this article, have a look at Ken Kesey, a man with a fascinating history, who believed that society often pushes out those who do not fit the conventional ideas of how society expects them to act or behave.(12) These unconventionals were then labelled insane and committed to Psychiatric units. As I mentioned earlier, the dates are important.

Does Autism actually exist?

Quite possibly, but as I have hopefully shown in this article, there are also compelling arguments suggesting it’s very possible that it does not, the idea was not as ridiculous as it may have first seemed. Regardless of what opinions I may or may not hold, the truth is, I don’t know. I also think that “I don’t know” can often be a better place to start than “I believe”.

What I do know, is that Science, and Academia in general are proven to have serious problems. From paper mills producing scam papers to outright organised fraud. Experiments, studies, tests and research are not always adhering to the robust scientific method they should, with results being manipulated to purposefully favour any given hypothesis, cherry picking data, and disregarding results that don’t fit the desired conclusion. Peer review is not the sufficient safeguard that we’re led to believe. Incidences of gatekeeping, bullying, defamation, character assassination, and smear campaigns are rife. Regarding the Pharma industry, it seems that the snake-oil salesmen of old didn't disappear, they rebranded and went from strength to strength dominating an industry that turns over staggering amounts of yearly profits to the tune of hundred of billions, prioritising these profits over all else. Building up a positive reputation by acquiring the rights and patents of some successful products, in doing so they managed to repeatedly slip in harmful wares into their stock, often going undiscovered for dangerously long periods of time. When they are caught out, the disproportionally low fines they receive have no effect on the deep pockets of their shareholders, the mud doesn’t stick, their reputation goes untarnished and they’re able to repeat without so much as a wash and a rinse. I encourage people not to dismiss out of hand any theory that contradicts the narrative, nor to resort to immediate insult towards those presenting such theories. Equating the narrative to unquestionable truth is a dangerous precedent to set, it’s just not science. In any case, the insults are more likely to result in those doubling down on their beliefs instead of seeking to know, they become more susceptible to unfounded fringe elements and unable to separate themselves from observation bias and confirmation bias, especially those that aren’t as scientifically astute. Rather it’s much better to hear out the arguments on both sides and do your own thorough research to the best of your ability. Making a steelman argument for the contrasting views is a good place to start.

The very real possibility remains that perhaps soon in the near future, your ability to rely on the internet as a resource for research could rapidly decline. Should you type a vague question regarding the topics discussed here into the search engine of your choice, or if you were to ask an AI search assistant of your choice as to whether Autism exists, you will most likely only find an answer that fits the current narrative, and other view points will be dismissed as either pseudoscience, or claimed that no such contradictory view points are available. The algorithms are dominating more and more of our lives, claiming to show you more of what you want to see, but in reality, they are showing you more of what someone else wants you to see. Restrictions on access to the internet are coming into force and there are even strong claims and evidence to suggest that certain articles are actively being edited or removed from the internet completely. With the “facts” being checked, who is checking the fact-checkers?

As an extra little titbit back to the topic of Autism. Many people still associate Autism with the film Rain Man, which starred Dustin Hoffman playing the "Autistic Savant" character named Raymond Babbitt. The character was said to be inspired by Kim Peek who, like Case One Donald Triplett, was a real life Savant. Although Peek had received a diagnosis for Autism, this was later believed to be incorrect, and an alternative diagnosis of FG Syndrome was posited. Savants are capable of such incredible feats that they could be said to almost rival a computer even by today's standards. Savant Syndrome is not synonymous with Autism but rather a separate condition that can co-exist. It is estimated that between 0.5% and 10% of those with Autism have some form of savant abilities. As far as the 5th edition of the DSM, Savant syndrome in not recognised as a mental disorder. Due to the extraordinary capabilities of savants it comes as no surprise to hear, that some people are actively seeking to acquire such talents. Cue more human experimentation.

It is said that; “Savant syndrome has been artificially replicated using low-frequency trans-cranial magnetic stimulation to temporarily disable this area of the brain” (This area being the temporal lobe). In an article here on the National Library for Biotechnology Information, an argument is put forward that "savant skills are latent in us all", and seeks "to explore the possibility of artificially inducing such skills in healthy, normal individuals".(13)

Isn't that fascinating? Manipulating the brain with magnets can induce Savant abilities, on "healthy normal individuals", whatever healthy and normal is these days, yes very fascinating indeed. But that's not all magnets can do. According to this study here listed on the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),(14) and this abstract snippet from Cambridge University, using magnets on the brain can even switch off empathy in individuals.(15) One wonders whether these experiments would pique the interest of the military or intelligence agencies? I’m not sure, perhaps not. It’s not like they’ve ever shown any interest or had any involvement in the past regarding a desire to bolster their ranks with individuals possessing increased ability coupled with a lack of empathy. Did I mention Ken Kesey already? He really did have a fascinating history.

Speaking of empathy, and continuing the theme of Autism for that matter, did you know that the IDF, yes that IDF, have a “program designed to train young Autistic adults who want to volunteer for service in the IDF”? And that they are “taught professions for which they have a comparative advantage”?

Ro’im Rachok was founded in 2013 by two Mossad veterans who realized that certain individuals on the Autism spectrum could be unusually skilled at spending long hours analysing aerial reconnaissance photographs and picking out tiny details. In addition to its military benefits, there are social benefits to the program. 

Great stuff, and obviously nothing nefarious here, as there never is when military programs are involved with considerably vulnerable individuals. I mean, it sounds very noble, and a great way to help these individuals gain the support and skills they need to succeed in life where otherwise they might have been excluded. There is absolutely zero evidence that I have came across to suggest, that individuals identified under current criteria as having Autism, have ever been inducted into the military and experimented on with magnets to the brain, with the intention to research and attempt to artificially induce Savant Syndrome, inadvertently using the same magnetic technology to remove empathy from decision making, no evidence at all, not yet anyway, but make of it what you will. Besides, according to this on the Science.org website, scientists have also discovered that they can use magnets to remove people’s belief in God and actually make them less biased towards immigrants.(16)
 
Yes well, all that messing about with magnets to the brain does seem rather confusing. Obviously the IDF and the powers that be in Israel certainly believe in God, they’re well known for their abundance of empathy and they sure love immigration.

Using magnets to remove empathy from human decision making, what will they think of next? I can only imagine what affect this might have on people who would already struggle to orienteer and navigate themselves using a moral compass, or on those that don’t even possess one.
From the simple discovery of the attraction of ferrous metals to each other, to sticking notes to the refrigerator, the electric motor, MRI scans, phone networks and signals, to now even removing empathy from an individual, our uses of electro-magnetism have certainly increased to produce many miraculous marvels of the modern age. But that’s a whole other spectrum.

In closing, the points I have discussed in this article have many threads to pull on. It is a rabbit hole as they say and the warren is huge. I would highly recommend you go down it. I have only rather briefly touched upon the topic of Autism, and although the links I have provided do contain hours worth of a combination of written and video information, there is so very much more to it, with each point really deserving it’s own dedicated article. I admit that how I have presented this is rather rough and unpolished, it was thrashed together in haste rather clumsily and I apologise in advance for my lack of writing experience. I hope with practice I can improve.

I have not written this with any intentions of offending anybody, nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything other than to highlight the relevance and importance of ethical rigorous scientific method, free speech and open debate, whilst also encouraging open-minded and respectful discourse. Whilst presenting factual information that some may perceive as being shaded with light conspiratorial overtones, at the very least I hope I have provided a little food for thought.

🔴The following are the sources and citations intended as hyperlinks throughout the article]

1. Time For Trump To Rekindle Debate On MMR And Autism




⏩Matt Bowen is a researcher and commentator?

Autism And The MMR Vaccine

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Eight Hundred And Fifty Six

 

A Morning Thought @ 2930

 

A Morning Thought @ 2929

Gearóid Ó Loinsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 13-October-2025.


Donald Trump woke up to some bad news, that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee couldn’t bring themselves to debase themselves and crawl through the gutter to give him a Nobel Peace Prize. He was genuinely angry, the spoilt little rich kid, completely bereft of any sense of his own capabilities and achievements, thought he should get one just because he wanted it. You know how it is, spoilt rich brat shouts I want, I want, I want and the parents give it to them, whereas most of us got a clip round the ear for that type of behaviour.

The more intelligent right wingers and outright fascists in his government were just as nonplussed by what had happened. They wondered how a committee that had debased itself for most of its history and had given the prize to people just as unsavoury as Trump, couldn’t hold their nose one more time and do their master’s bidding.

The common view of the prize is that it is one that is awarded to those who have sought to make the world a better place. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth when you look at the list of winners. There are some exceptions to his rule, which I will look at and then there are the institutions that win it such as the Red Cross, the United Nations and laughably even the European Union, despite its member states regularly bombing just about everywhere. Then there are the individuals. Many of them represent the great and good in bourgeois society, heads of state, former heads of state, leaders of major institutions, those that have done the bidding of the imperial powers at various points in their lives and then of course there are the mass murderers, racists and upper-class thugs with their finger on the trigger. Such was it so, from the very beginning.

The first US citizen to win it and also the first of a number of US presidents was Theodore Roosevelt. He was awarded it in 1906, allegedly for his efforts to bring an end to the war between Russia and Japan. Whatever! This man was no pacifist by any stretch of the imagination, quite the opposite in fact. He defended the US invasion of the Philippines and it was he who stole the province of Panama from Colombia in 1903 and began building the canal. Prior to that, he had played a key role in the war with Spain. Nonetheless, he was given the prize as he brokered an end to a war in a manner which favoured his view of US imperialist interests. He was one of the first nasties to get it. Many of the others in the first part of the 20th Century were diplomats, politicians and the like who brokered or advocated the easing of tensions etc. They were rewarded as part of the Old Boys Imperial Club. The prize did not have the misplaced honour it has today as something given to “people” who contribute positively to humanity. It was generally speaking an inter-institutional pat on the back.

In the late 1950s and 1960s onwards other names began to crop up, which were seen as being outside the realm of governments and international institutions, though they were still a minority, amongst them Albert Luthull, the head of the then non-violent African National Congress who was awarded the prize in recognition of his non-violent struggle against Apartheid. Then came Martin Luther King, a surprising nomination and given the context of the time, one which angered many of the forebears of Trump’s MAGA movement. Though there was an institutional setting even for MLK, the passing of the US Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Then in 1973, came one of the nastiest of the nasties: Henry Kissinger. He was awarded it for negotiating a ceasefire as the first step in the US surrender to the Vietnamese revolutionaries who beat the most powerful empire the world had seen, though the Nobel Ctte. didn’t quite put it like that. They framed it in the usual institutional terms of previous winners. Kissinger, to be clear, was the mass murderer responsible for the clandestine carpet bombing of Cambodia,[1] then a neutral country, during the Vietnam war, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands with some estimates going as high as 500,000 - and shortly before accepting his prize, he also overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. These were minor matters to the Nobel Ctte. Even today, this is how the Nobel Ctte. describes this criminal who should have swung from the gallows for his crimes. It is of course the speech given by Aase Lionaes, Chairperson of the Nobel Committee, at the ceremony itself.

Kissinger, on the other hand, places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that peace was bound up with an international order, based on universally accepted principles for the behaviour of states in their relations to one another. In those days, too, political systems differed widely, and the great powers had a great many conflicting interests. But by and large they respected these principles and rules, and on this basis they tried to prevent differences of systems and interests leading to war.

It was therefore quite natural that Kissinger should place very great emphasis on diplomacy as a factor for the promotion of peace as well, diplomacy both as a profession and as an art.

The overriding idea in Kissinger’s views on foreign policy is that peace must be based on rules to which all states, at any rate the great powers, adhere in their conduct. It is not sufficient for one single state, or a number of states, to do so.[2]

I think that is clear enough. There are no caveats on the Nobel page to that speech, no footnotes to mitigate their endorsement of a mass murderer. They give prizes to the vilest people on the planet and then wash their hands of it, falsifying the record in a style that would do Orwell’s 1984 justice. War is Peace.

Kissinger was jointly awarded the prize alongside the Vietnamese negotiator Lê Đức Thọ. Thọ refused the prize. Lionaes said in her speech that:

Le Duc Tho has informed the Committee that at present he is not in a position to be able to accept the Prize, giving as his reason the present situation in Vietnam[3] 

And went on to say they would hold the prize for him for a year. Not so, he outright rejected the prize. The reasons given, tell us everything you need to know about the prize and why it is not surprising that a Venezuelan escuálida won it this time. He stated:

Unfortunately, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee put the aggressor and the victim of aggression on the same par. ... That was a blunder,’

And in his letter to the Nobel Ctte. he said:

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the greatest prizes in the world… But the United States conducted a war of aggression against Vietnam. It is we, the Vietnamese people, who made peace by defeating the American war of aggression against us, by regaining our independence and freedom.[4]

He did the right thing and turned it down and prevented the Nobel Ctte. from rewriting history. The Yanks lost to a militarily, logistically and economically weaker force, but one that like the Palestinians had the advantage that they were not strangers in a strange land stomping through it. The Nobel Ctte. frequently warps, distorts and rewrites the history of conflicts, in such a manner that favours imperialism. Thọ afforded them no such opportunity in the case of Vietnam. A bloody murderous empire was defeated in the paddy fields by the peasant farmers who planted rice in those same fields. Tenacity, courage, and mass support won the day.

Kissinger wasn’t the last of the nasties. There were others to come. Barack Obama is just one of them, though when they gave him his prize, it was pre-emptive and he hadn’t yet set the custom of afternoon tea on Tuesdays to choose which Pakistani wedding his drones would bomb. The terrorist Menachem Begin got it as he convinced Egypt to surrender and collaborate fully with the Zionist project. This Polish Zionist was another mass murderer and his record on the matter was in the public domain at the time. He went on to invade Lebanon and his minister for defence, Ariel Sharon (Scheinerman) was responsible for the massacre of Sabra and Chatila, in which 3,500 civilians were murdered by his henchmen. Other Israeli murderers would win it.

Yitzhak Rabin was one such criminal. As Israeli Minister of Defence it was he who introduced the Iron Fistpolicy in the West Bank of detention without trial, demolishing houses, censorship, deportations and beatings, including the infamous Breaking of Bones, made notorious through the filming of Israeli soldiers doing exactly that to young Palestinians, beating them with rocks. His criminal record is much longer than that though. He played a key part in the Nakba and gave Ben-Gurion the go ahead to expel 70,000 Palestinians from the cities of Lydda and Ramle.[5]

Shimon Peres (Perski) was another. He and Rabin both got their prize for their role in getting Yassir Arafat to surrender to the Zionists at Oslo. Arafat was also included and gleefully accepted and wallowed in the cesspool of betrayal, he was no Lê Đức Thọ. But then neither was Mandela, he accepted his prize alongside the criminal FW de Klerk whose Apartheid role was, if you’ll pardon the expression, whitewashed at the Nobel ceremony.

Of course, some might say I am being unfair, that lots of decent people won it. Yes, there have been some, not lots, but they never won it just because their cause was just. One of the first was Carl Von Ossietsky, a German activist who was imprisoned by the Nazis and died of tuberculosis whilst in prison. In 1936, he was awarded the prize for his work against German rearmament and militarism, or as they put it “for his burning love for freedom of thought and expression and his valuable contribution to the cause of peace”. He was a worthy winner, but the problem is that he had been campaigning for years, long before Hitler came to power with no support from the great and good who get to decide such matters. Some support before Hitler had come to power may have helped him and others. Rigaberto Menchú, the Guatemalan indigenous leader won it in 1992, long after the genocide of some 200,000 indigenous people in Guatemala in the early 1980s[6] and after her father Vicente was murdered in 1980 along with 37 other people including some Spanish diplomats when the Police set fire to the Embassy following a protest occupation.[7] When she got it, the writing was on the wall, the URNG was going to do a deal with the regime. It no longer mattered that much.

When it suits western governments is a key component. In Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan won the prize in 1976. The Peace People was presented as a pacifist movement and yet it had little to say about violence from Loyalist groups nor the British state either. In fact, it completely ignored the circumstances that gave rise to their organisation being founded, the deaths of the Maguire children following the shooting dead of IRA volunteer Danny Lennon by the British army which caused his car to veer off the road into the children. They blamed the IRA. After winning the prize and even before, they wined and dined with the powerful, everyone from the English queen, Elizabeth Windsor to the Pope. After they got the prize money, Betty Williams stuck to her principles, took the money and ran off to live in the USA and soon looked like she had a walk on role in Dallas. As she infamously put it herself, she needed the money.[8] Well, who doesn’t?

Which brings us to the latest winner María Corina Machado. They didn’t feel they could give it to such an obvious eejit as Donald Trump, he wouldn’t have the intellectual gravitas for the ceremony and the decorum of the event is important to the Norwegians. So, they did the next best thing, they gave it to one of his acolytes and as with many past nasty winners, like Kissinger, they painted a picture of a living saint. She is portrayed as a peaceful campaigner for change in Venezuela.

According to the Nobel Ctte:

she is being awarded it due to her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.[9] 

In their press release they cite her as saying “It was a choice of ballots over bullets.”[10] This is the same woman who shortly after winning dedicated it to Trump. She has supported Trump’s military build-up in the Caribbean and even his attacks on sea boats, murdering migrants.[11] But the Nobel Ctte. felt that someone who supports murder on the open seas in breach of international law is a worthy peace prize winner.

She is an ardent Zionist and supporter of the genocide and had previously called for Israel to take military action against Venezuela.[12] Hardly the words of a pacifist. She is also in favour of privatising Venezuela’s economy including the state oil company. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, and Norway is one of the largest oil producers and exporters in the world. I am sure Machado will thank them with a few contracts and oil fields when the day comes.

Ever since Chávez came to power in Venezuela, the opposition, aptly referred to locally as Escuálidos (weaklings) have campaigned against the government, complaining about everything from poor people getting free medical care (I kid you not) to educational programmes. These are the people who had run Venezuela with an iron hand, they are the same people responsible for the Caracazo massacre in 1989 carried out by the Venezuelan state in which up to 3,000 people were murdered.[13] A watershed moment in Venezuela which would eventually lead to Chávez taking power.

She is as deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize as Henry Kissinger i.e. she fully deserves it. It has almost always been awarded to people intrinsic to the system and when given to critics they are always the safe option at that point in time. The prize is ignoble, one we shouldn’t pay too much attention to. When Neville Chamberlain was nominated, a Swedish anti-fascist E.C.G. Brandt nominated Hitler as a sarcastic satirical comment on Chamberlain’s peace in our time surrender of the Sudetenland and the annexation of Austria by Hitler. His mocking letter to the Nobel Ctte. is not all that different in tone to much of the stuff spouted about other winners, such as Kissinger and the latest abomination to win it. He said of Hitler

Authentic documents reveal that in September 1938 world peace was in great danger; it was only a matter of hours before a new European war could break out. The man who during this dangerous time saved our part of the world from this terrible catastrophe was without no doubt the great leader of the German people. In the critical moment he voluntarily did not let weapons speak although he had the power to start a world war.

Sadly, there still are a great number of people who fail to see the greatness in Adolf Hitler’s struggle for peace. Based on this fact I would not have found the time right to nominate Hitler as a candidate to the Nobel Peace Prize had it not been for a number of Swedish parliamentarians who have nominated another candidate, namely the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. This nomination seems to be poorly thought. Although it is true that Chamberlain through his generous understanding of Hitler´s struggle for pacification has contributed to the saving of world peace, the last decision was Hitler’s and not Chamberlains! Hitler and no one else is first and foremost to be thanked for the peace which still prevails in the greater part of Europe; and this man is also the hope for peace in the future.

This nomination was brilliant satire, but as with much satire, very close to the bone. What he says of Hitler in his mocking letter sounds eerily similar to what the Nobel Ctte. itself has said of many of the winners, including the nasties. I know that sometimes we think well wouldn’t it be great if Francesca Albanese won it. But that is to place your trust in the enemy. It is, by and large, with few exceptions a reward for service to the system. It is a credit to Albanese that she didn’t win it and we should stop participating in this nonsense.

[1] BBC (02/12/2023) Henry Kissinger’s Cambodia legacy of bombs and chaos. Ouch Sony & George Wright. 

[2] See.

[3] Ibíd.

[4] UPI (17/12/1986) Personality Spotlight: Le Duc Tho: Vietnam’s poet-revolutionary. 

[5] Electronic Intifada (25/09/2025) Why is AOC honoring an Israeli war criminal?. Ali Abunimah. 

[6] Barbara M. Recinos (17/12/2024) Genocide in Guatemala: The Massacres of the Ixil Region. 

[7] GHRC (n/d) The Burning of the Spanish Embassy Case. 

[8] Irish Times (18/03/2025) Death of peace campaigner and Nobel Laureate Betty Williams. Gerry Moriarty. 

[9] See.

[10] See https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2025/press-release/

[11] New York Times (10/10/2025) Peace Prize Winner Has Supported Trump’s Military Actions in the Caribbean. Julie Turkewitz.

[12] Times of India (12/10/2025) Supported Israel? Why Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado is facing backlash; old posts resurface. 

[13] Venezuela Analysis (01/03/2016) Venezuela’s Caracazo: State Repression and Neoliberal Misrule. 

⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

The Ignoble Nobel

Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières ★ Written by Kavita Krishnan.

The ’anti-west’ left ignores China’s complicity in Israeli occupation and genocide.

The issue isn’t if China can do more for Palestine

The question is will China stop actively enabling Israel’s genocide and occupation.

China is the top exporter to Israel - at 17% way ahead of the US at 11%. What does it export? Chinese state-owned giant corporations build and run infrastructure - highways, power plants, ports - all over Israel and in occupation settlements in the West Bank. These include projects with strategic military importance like the Haifa Port. In India, we target Adani for its stake in Haifa but not China.

Worst of all, Chinese AI tech companies guide drones to evict Gazans, and provide surveillance, facial recognition and data collection in the West Bank - Israel buys this because it’s impressed by China’s success in using such tech in Xinjiang against Uyghurs.

Why doesn’t BDS focus on China as a target?

If China wanted it could, by ending its own complicity, bring Israel to a grinding halt in one stroke to force an end to the genocide. But it won’t.

Continue @ ESSF.

Why Does The Left Ignore Chinese Support For Israeli Colonialism?

Christopher Owens 🎵 Being an Irish based band can be a thankless task.


Despite an endless pool of talent and outlets covering such talent, there are limited opportunities here. While the advent of the internet has helped tremendously, bands still need to get in front of an audience to build support. This means having to get the ferry constantly to tour England, Scotland and Wales if you want to get to a certain level of notoriety. Even the most remarkable of acts have fallen foul of being constrained in this country’s limited gig circuit.

The Sons of Robert Mitchum were one such band.

♫♫♫♫


Beginning around 2009, the Sons were the brainchild of Morgan Moore (born and raised in South Africa but whose parents were originally from NI), Jack Forgie (ex-Ruefrex) and drummer Marcin Sobzcak. Although trumpet player Thomas Behringer was a quick addition to the ranks, they went through a few bassists before landing on Andrew Thompson.

Being gentleman of a certain vintage and with an internationalist membership, they were destined to stand out in the NI music scene. It did help that their music was unlike anything else was producing at the time and that it stands tall well over a decade later.





‘Build My Gallows High’ is a remarkable opener. Sobzcak’s china cymbals set a foreboding mood and Moore’s refrain of “build my gallows high/don’t leave me hanging” manages to be both amusing and troublesome. When the whole band kicks in, the overall effect is a cross between Morricone style spaghetti western music and Scott Walker defiant lament. It’s especially notable for just how much a spectacle is being made of the narrator’s plight whose only act of defiance in this zoo is to yell.

I’ve said in the past that ‘Soviet Hotel Dressing Gown’ is the finest song to have emerged from Ireland in the last 20 years and I stand by that claim 100%. A slow burning atmospheric number that sounds like Mark Lanegan if he had been in Weimar Germany, it paints a mysterious portrait of a woman who doesn’t like questions but loves Leonard Cohen. Magical.

‘A Song for Ella’ could very well be about the same woman as the narrator is struck by her beauty and her world, but this time the music is much more spacey and wistful, hinting at intense longing that is ultimately doomed. While lacking the coolness of ‘Soviet Hotel…’ and the darkness of ‘Build My Gallows High’, the song adds a romantic mood to the record and shows that there is a beating heart behind the cynical mouth.


We’re back in familiar terrain with ‘Down by Law’ which recounts how a night on the lash ended up with six months in the cell. Behringer’s trumpet work really gives this song a dirty, jazzy edge a la Gallon Drunk that makes it seem the song is set in some illicit New Orleans prison cell. Worth it for the line “I’ve got the voice of Morgan Freeman narrating every move.”

‘David Contemplated’ is glorious. Narrating the story of a serial killer, the song is a perfect mesh of post-punk, jazz and beatnik sensibility. Tom Waits could sing this, and no-one would think it was a cover. Moore’s delivery of the lines “She took a ride with the killer inside/No longer will the cagebird sing” thrills even the most apathetic of listeners.

The heaviest song on here (musically and thematically), ‘Darwin’s Nightmare’ is a menacing number about an army invading a town and committing war crimes akin to My Lai. This is where Forgie shines as his guitar lines rumble along (akin to an incoming tank) and the main riff feels like bombs going off. The power and righteous anger on display here is second to none.

Closing the record is the instrumental ’28 Amelie’s Later’ (a neat mesh of 28 Days Later and Amelie). Originally composed for a student short film, it’s akin to The Stranglers ‘Golden Brown’ if it was set in post-apocalyptic Paris. Rich in pathos, atmosphere and a little bit romantic at the same time. It’s an odd finish but one that works surprisingly well.

♫♫♫♫


Although released in 2015, the album is a combination of two previously released EPs from 2010 and 2011. Amazing to think that the record flows so well, but there was a reason for such a move.

Despite building up a substantial name for themselves in Ireland and even touring Poland (leading to them being featured on Polish TV), they suffered a blow when Forgie quit in 2013 (not long after a Record Store Day set I saw them play in Dragon Records) and while they carried on with James Reid, it was never the same. Reid is a brilliant guitar player, but he was more of a Clapton/Beck style guitarist (which never suited the Sons at all). He left and the band went quiet.

There is another album of recorded material that has yet to be released (as I have heard a few numbers from them) but with the band’s last gig being 2019, it seems the chances of seeing them released (as well as new gigs) are slim.

A crying shame as this music stands up. Often, unsigned local music ends up being reduced to an anecdote as part of beer-soaked memories of misspent youth. But the Sons music can’t, as they stood apart from the scene, created their own thing and we are much richer for that.

Pay homage to the masters.


⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist.

From The Vaults 🎶 The Sons Of Robert Mitchum ‘Soviet Hotel Dressing Gown’

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)