Forbidden Texts

            In the last section of the Anarchist Cookbook, Powell details what to do when being arrested, going into detail about the process and repeating things I myself have heard many times before. Respect the cop, answer their questions if absolutely necessary, do not show fear, and finally, most importantly, shut up. This contrasts with the rest of his book, which blatantly drags the government, the military, and the police, basically calling them useless by suggesting a man should only respect the laws he gives himself. Ignoring the misogyny there for a second, this is interesting to me, as Powell clearly had an intense dislike for those who manage or have authority over society. However, the situation must be different when one is actually in the hands of the law. As Powell states repeatedly, a cop always has weapons that they know how to use and have used before, that gives them an immediate advantage; with this power they can do anything they want and it is best to comply. It just really strikes me that this is completely opposite everything Powell was advocating for in the rest of his book. For such a controversial text, the Anarchist Cookbook has several instances of valid advice, and I think this is one of them.

            A quote from the postscript that I found funny, “If you smoke, carry an extra pack of cigarettes with you, as it is a real bitch getting cigarettes in jail” (155). To me, this shows the American dependence on stimulants to calm down during the workday, something that then allows them to keep working. For someone so against capitalism, I would think Powell would oppose cigarettes, especially as he lists out all the other drugs one can create, access, or/and use in a prior section.

Finally, I just wanted to mention how outdated the pricing within this book was, I mean less than a hundred dollars for a gun that is now priced to over five hundred dollars. Powell mentions how every man should have at least a gun, but also a rifle if possible, something that seems outrageous to me in the day of mass-shootings.

First published in 1971, William Powell’s The Anarchist Cookbook details the “recipes” for manufacturing homemade illicit drugs, explosives, weapons, surveillance devices, and methods of general sabotage, while even offering legal advice for when one finds themself arrested at a demonstration. Powell wrote this book at the height of the counterculture era during the U.S.’s involvement in the Vietnam War, a time when many Americans became severely disillusioned with the federal government. During a period in which people felt left in the dark regarding politics and government, Powell wanted to “stir some stagnant brain cells into action” (p. 27) among what he called the “silent majority” by providing them with what he saw as a comprehensive anarchist toolkit for fighting against systems of governmental oppression.

I think Powell meant well but was incredibly naïve when he wrote The Anarchist Cookbook. He was so young and angry about being drafted into the Vietnam War, and frustrated with the political climate in the late 1960s. At that moment, he likely believed the book was a clever act of resistance. Because he stated so clearly that his intention was only to educate the “silent majority” and not to provide a toolkit for fringe groups or reckless individuals (p. 111), he seems to have genuinely assumed that the recipes would be used only to resist governmental oppression, and not to harm innocent people. However, he could not have been more wrong. In reality, several high-profile bombers and mass shooters have been linked to The Anarchist Cookbook. They possessed copies, read it before committing attacks, and in some cases used its information directly. The Oklahoma City bomber and the Columbine shooters are two of the most infamous examples. These acts of violence, which caused immense harm and trauma, are exactly the kinds of outcomes Powell insisted he did not intend. They also represent a fundamental difference between Powell’s stated goals through his book and the way in which it was actually used. 

On page 111, Powell also writes, “I see ‘the revolution’ as a humanistic change, which may or may not incorporate violence. It must be a revitalization of the American system to take us back to the real moral and political principles adopted in 1776.” By this logic, someone like the Oklahoma City bomber could claim justification because he believed he was retaliating against federal overreach. But even if government oppression should be challenged and held accountable, that does not mean that the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of innocent people are expendable.

To me, this is where Powell’s naïveté becomes most clear. He assumed readers would share his belief in “humanistic change” through revolution and would take care with these recipes and not misuse them. He assumed they would understand the difference between resisting oppression and committing indiscriminate criminal acts. However, once the book was published, it was too late because even after he called for the publisher to withdraw The Anarchist Cookbook from circulation, he was refused. 

Based on the 2016 Netflix documentary American Anarchist, which centers on interviews with Powell, he no longer stood by what he had written in The Anarchist Cookbook. In the film, he expresses remorse and even embarrassment, calling the book “absolute rubbish.” He also acknowledges that he could understand how anarchists or extremists might read portions of the text such as “freedom is based on respect, and respect must be earned by the spilling of blood” (p. 157), and use it to justify really destructive or straight up evil acts, which has unfortunately been the case. Powell’s later reflections serve as a reminder of the negative impact that texts can have even when they are written with good intentions. Overall, I can certainly see why The Anarchist Cookbook is still to this day extremely controversial, and I can only hope that people do not continue to use it for the wrong reasons.

When reading the anarchist cookbook, I was initially put off by the somewhat dry opening, where he details the history and politics of anarchism. This was an important read, and served to give context for the rest of the book, but it was a lot duller than I expected going in. After this, though, the book picks up a lot. I managed the read the entire 157 page work (minus a few of the longer technical sections) in a few hours. Aside from the obvious political and social controversies surrounding the book, I found it to be well-written and even funny at times, which impressed me considering the author was the same age I am now while he was writing it.

The first major section, focusing on drugs, is surprisingly responsible in how it advocates for drug use. Powell deliberately warns against things like administering drugs through injection, or using heroin at all. Additionally, he even provides instructions for assisting someone who is undergoing a heroin overdoes, which isn’t at all similar to the “dangerous, militant anarchist” reputation that the book has. Powell includes instructions on how to grow or otherwise produce drugs, and where to obtain them, continuing to advocate for responsible use “Treat drugs with respect, moderation, and common sense” (59). This section does include some longer technical sections, mostly focusing on the laboratory production of certain drugs, but Powell provides layman-friendly instructions when he can.

The next section, which focuses on surveillance and other methods of tracking individuals or groups, is unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on where your beliefs lie) somewhat irrelevant in the wake of flock cameras and other mass surveillance programs. As this was written in the early 1970s, there is obviously no mention of the internet, which has become a larger part of our lives today than telephones or fax machines ever were in the seventies. The section also includes instructions on avoiding or disrupting government surveillance, which is, again, made useless due to modern advancements in technology. The book was written in a pre-PATRIOT act world, and it shows. Things detailed by Powell such as carjacking, which he describes as easy to get away with, would doubtlessly be a lot less reliable in the modern day.

The final main section includes information on building weapons. I think, out of all the content of the book, this is rightly the most controversial. Powell really gets in deep about his revolutionary goals, and provides analysis on why the US doesn’t undergo revolution like some other countries. He posits that it’s citizens are kept just comfortable enough where they don’t want to risk things by revolting, but if situations continue to degrade then revolution is much more likely. He speaks about this hypothetical revolution, calling for the use of “child soldiers” since he believes that they will be better fighters (87). He also speaks at length about things like guns, improvised weapons, and bomb-making, the last section especially likely being why the book is so widely banned today. Surprisingly, unlike most traditionally left-wing thinkers, Powell advocates heavily for the second amendment, saying that is essential for defense from tyranny, though still goes out of his way to state that “a gun is not a toy, a gun is not a plaything” (88).

In closing with this post, I think it is important to discuss the author himself. As said earlier, William Powell was only 19 years old when he first published the Cookbook while in New York, and later went on to greatly regret it, even attempting to get it pulled from publication. However, the publisher, Lyle Stuart (who, interestingly enough, also published The Turner Diaries) refused, and it remains in print today with Powell passing away in 2016. Another contextual aspect is that the book contains a large amount of inaccurate information. In the drug section, it posits that you can get high from smoking banana skins (you cannot), and in the section on bomb-making many of the recipes will result in the mixture blowing up. The book has even been theorized to be a CIA plant to provide inaccurate information to would-be terrorists, but I think this is more likely the work of a dumb 19-year-old forgetting to include crucial information.

While the book does call for violence, sometimes shockingly so, I think it is definitely worth reading. Even outside of the revolutionary context that Powell presents it in, sections like the guide to self-defense are absolutely helpful, even to someone who fully intends on staying inside the bounds of the law. He also discusses how to interact with police officers, putting forward advice like “For god’s sake, do not be a high school or college lawyer and explain to the cop what he can and cannot do. He can do anything, he’s got the gun.” (154) and other tips for protecting and taking full advantage of your rights, which I think is especially relevant in light of recent police brutality events. However, much of the book’s content is a time capsule of the 1970s counter-culture scene, and may not be as relevent today as it once is. I think, despite the author’s best intentions, The Anarchist Cookbook remains available today, for better or for worse.

The SCUM Manifesto is a very interesting read. the SCUM, or Society for Cutting Up Men, Manifesto is a radical feminist work that encourages women to “overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex”(p.1). The author believes that men are inherently flawed with this flaw stemming from their incomplete chromosomes. “The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female”(p.1). She then explains how men’s inadequacy of not being female leads them to cause various issues such as war, prejudice, and censorship. I found it particularly interesting how she describes the continuation of capitalism/work as an attempt for men to overcome this inadequacy, give himself power over women, and to give himself a purpose. She argues that most work could be automated and money made obsolete but men prevent this because of these reasons. But the part of the text that this manifesto is most well known for is the advocation for the destruction of the male sex. “Just as humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy” (p.12). I find this entire text to be fascinating in how unapologetic the author is in her beliefs for the destruction of men, so much so that I question if this is a work of satire similar to “A Modest proposal”. Overall, I found this text to be quite interesting and enjoyable and it might be my favorite of the texts that we have read.

The SCUM Manifesto consists of 5 radical beliefs. She begins with stating how men are emotionally and biologically inferior to women. She calls men “A walking abortion” (Page 1) stating that their Y chromosome is and incomplete X chromosome making them deficient. Then she moves to explaining that their incompleteness results in poor emotional development. How men are egocentric, incapable of empathy, love, friendship, affection of tenderness. For me this was the most impactful part of the text. I know its not grounded in reality or even science, however it really caused me to think more in depth about my own personal experience with guys.

She goes on to talk about how their emotional deficiency is the reason society is essentially screwed, How they’re poor parenting results in self loathing girls and boys, the need for violence and war so they can feel stimulated, race wars to place their failures on others. Even explaining how they put these traditionalist beliefs on women to keep them in a position to serve men. Her solution to this is the women who are not bound by these traditions and beliefs, who hate men, the idea of being a mother, and even being peaceful. She believe if enough of these women worked together they could completely take down society and the money system. Eventually rebuilding a new world where men are dominated by their female partners, and if they are not subservient and instead combative, they should be disposed of.

I did not care much for her actual manifesto and conspiracy to take down the world, I suppose maybe I’m complicit, I felt she definitely had a lot of oversight. She definitely lost me quite a lot when she began discussing homosexuality and transgender people, I simply think thats not a group of people to be spoken for, especially stating that they all want to be women, and that their relationships are unstable.

However, as I said before when she talks about how men are incomplete emotionally because they’re Y chromosome instead of two X chromosomes, it made me consider personal experiences. Even some research I’ve looked into describing how boys develop significantly slower then girls. I found that even at the age of 18 boys are at least 1-2 years behind. I really had to sit on this because it genuinely made me process the difference in the mindset of many guys I’ve met versus the many women I know. Even knowing Solonas had no scientific evidence to back her claims, its hard to look at guys and not see them as underdeveloped.

I think this also is where the line of feminism and Misandry should be discussed. Feminism is about the uplifting of women from the position they’re put in by society. Solanas’s manifesto is not about lifting up women but instead about the destruction of men and patriarchy. It’s a personal pet peeve of mine when people conflate women uplifting women and women hating men.

While reading The SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas I found many of her ideas strange because she talks about men in a very negative way. I understand that she is criticizing how women are treated in society. I was surprised by how she blames almost every problem on men. On page 1 she says that “To be male is to be deficient emotionally limited” . I found this interesting because of criticizing specific behaviors she makes it sound like all men are the same. I think this makes her argument difficult to agree with even when she brings up problems that are important. 

Another thing that caught my attention was her opinion about money and work. Solanas believes that society would be better if money disappeared and machines did most of the work. On page 2 she writes that “There is no reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most” . I found this idea interesting because work and money are such a part of everyday life that it is strange to imagine a society without them. At the time I think she makes everything sound too simple as if removing money and changing society would automatically solve its problems. 

Overall I think The SCUM Manifesto is an extreme text. I can understand that Solanas wanted to criticize the way society treated women. I do not agree with the way she generalizes an entire group of people. What stood out to me most was how she goes from criticizing society to suggesting that almost everything, about it needs to be destroyed. It made me think about how anger can make someone see the world in a different way. For me the book is interesting to read because it makes arguments but it also makes me question whether the solutions she proposes would actually make society better. 

To be honest, I found the SCUM Manifesto quite amusing because it is so extreme that it almost sounds like it could be satirical, similar to A Modest Proposal.

Overall, Solanas wrote the SCUM Manifesto in an organized, yet repetitive manner. She breaks the text up into several sections, each describing a different part of societal infrastructure that males have developed in an attempt to achieve womanhood and to also hide the fact that they are not females, while also manipulating females from childhood, who Solanas believes to be the superior sex, into believing that they are of the status Solanas believes men to be: that is, an empty, boring, insipid, and inferior blob. This manipulation of women by the male sex is what Solanas argues has allowed males to lead the world and for women to be on the sidelines (for example, being subservient and pandering to men instead of expressing original opinions).

She describes how men are always trying to “fuse” with females in order to become like them because males on their own are essentially lifeless and the only way for them to have some sense of feeling is to become a woman (the superior sex, according to Solanas).

She uses the SCUM Manifesto as a call to arms for women to not fall for male antics and rise above institutionalized maleness to reclaim the world for themselves by eliminating the male sex and all the institutions that it has established. She even goes as far as to say that “if women don’t get their asses into gear fast, we may very well all die,” (Solanas, 8).

Solanas also describes how the SCUM will reform society and how they will aim to eliminate the male sex and take over the world by undermining male-created infrastructure like the money-work system, taking over broadcasting, and breaking up male-female couples.

Another aspect of the SCUM Manifesto that I found interesting is how cynical it is, which I feel is not typical of someone that is trying to be revolutionary. In her call to arms of the female sex, suggesting that there is hope for society if the SCUM eliminates males, Solanas is also saying that there is no point in continuing society after the first generation. For example, on page 12, she asks questions like: “Why produce even females? Why should there be future generations? What is their purpose? When aging and death are eliminated, why continue to reproduce? Why should we care what happens when we’re dead? Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us,” which does not seem conducive to a successful movement.

So why would Solanas write this manifesto?

Solanas was likely not happy with the state of the world and how current male-dominated institutions were negatively affecting society when she self-published the manifesto in 1967. This leads me to believe that the manifesto functions as a satire that mocks male-led societies and institutions. It could also be negative personal interactions with men throughout her life that factored into the way she writes about them in her manifesto. Her distrust of men, especially in the artistic world (which she details in her manifesto) could also be why she shot Andy Warhol in 1968 because her extreme distrust of male artists led to her experiencing extreme paranoia over a work of hers that she presumed Warhol stole. Solanas was also very resentful of anti-feminist women that catered to the patriarchy because in her eyes, they were allowing men to continue destroying the world, which she discusses in the SCUM Manifesto. 

Overall, I can certainly see why the SCUM Manifesto is controversial. If anything because of how extreme it is. However, like A Modest Proposal, Solanas probably saw real problems in society that she believed male-led institutions caused and wanted to bring them to people’s attention, which led to her releasing this manifesto. However, I am not so sure that it was effective, as people were not really aware of the manifesto until after she shot Warhol, and even with that exposure, large second wave feminist organizations such as NOW distanced themselves from her and condemned her actions, which stifled any support for her ideologies in the manifesto.

While humorous in its depiction of men at times, the SCUM Manifesto managed to annoy me with its ableist language and eugenics philosophy. For such a radical feminist proposal, I had thought its attitude might be kind to those deemed lesser by society; I was incorrect. Instead, Solanas declares genetic control will soon be possible and production of people with “physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies” would be immoral. I disagree with this entirely, as people with disabilities or different abilities can have perfectly satisfactory or even enjoyable lives no matter their physical, mental, or emotional capabilities. People who are different are not lesser, they are just as worthy as everyone else. The suggestion of genetic control is not only scientifically inaccurate, as many disabilities can be caused by simple life activities, it is also abhorrent in philosophy, as it has historically discriminated against race, gender, sexuality, and marginalized communities. Later in her writings, Solanas promotes the formation and use of “friendly suicide center[s]” for handicapped “beings”, something that very much reminds me of Nazism and concentration camps. Thus, Solanas’ belief disadvantages the very people she claims to uplift; women.

Women are more likely than men to have disabilities and women are more likely than men to not receive appropriate medical care. Thus, shouldn’t radical feminism support changing medical systems to be based around both genders, shouldn’t Solanas uplift the idea that all bodies are equal, instead of proclaiming the perfect female can be artificially generated? I might agree that the patriarchal society has consistently harmed and put down women for literal millennia, however, I do not believe in reckless violence or condescending behavior. I want careful education, better societal standards, and equal opportunities. Solanas roots for anarchist actions that destroy society, focusing on pure rebellion which would harm millions, even billions, including those she wants to save. This manifesto is not realistic, it is delusional hope dressed as political commentary.

The bulk of the SCUM manifesto is divided into two main concepts, Solanas’ current disdain and grievances towards men, and her view of an egalitarian, female-only future free from things like money, illness, or death. To present the former, Solanas gives a long list of issues that she believes men are responsible (such as ugliness, boredom, war, and conformity). One of the main issues that she presents is that she believes men are, in fact, “incomplete women” due to the Y chromosome, and thus lacking in things like kindness, empathy, or creativity. Because of this, she states that men attempt to become women by taking on “feminine values”, and projecting “masculine values” like shallowness, commercialism, and vanity onto women to feel superior.

Solanas presents a somewhat irrational view of a man-free future. She states on page 11 that if it were not for men hindering the scientific process, the concept of disease and even death could be eradicated in a mere matter of years. Going further, she later posits that due to people being functionally immortal, there would be no need for sex or reproduction, and humanity could become fully self-sustaining. These lofty ideals are presented in a way where they seem entirely practical, and while there’s no way for anyone to know how society would turn out if all men were eradicated, it seems incredibly aspirational to say that all humankind would achieve immortality just a few years afterward.

Solanas talks at length about her disdain towards those considered “great artists”, saying that most art exists only to uplift men and express female values, again going back to her idea that men want to become women. She believes that men can never be artists because of an inherent lack of creativity, arguing that “A degenerate can only produce degenerate ‘art'”(Solanas 9). When looking at this alongside the historical context of her shooting Warhol, her issues with art and artists seem rather telling.

It should be noted that, despite Solanas’ claim that men are responsible for prejudice in the world, she isn’t above it herself. Solanas frequently uses homophobic slurs in her writing, as well as referring to transgender women as “drag queens”. Despite her own definition of maleness as conceptual rather than entirely physical, she seems convinced that a transgender person cannot fully change their gender, and a transgender women to her is lumped in with the men she is so passionately against.

There is a case for the work to be an example of pure satire, with no real intended threat behind it, but when looking further at the context this is somewhat doubtful. The manifesto does seem to be satirising Freud’s theory of femininity, replacing the concept of “Penis Envy” with “Pussy Envy”. It does also bring to mind A Modest Proposal, with both being texts presenting the hypothetical positive consequences of the elimination of a certain group of society. However, considering that SCUM was an actual movement that Solanas attempted to start and the fact that she shot Andy Warhol (no doubt considered one of the so-called “great artists” she was so fervently against), it’s clear that, at least in part, her ideals were authentic.

On a personal level, while we have read multiple hateful texts in this class, this was the first one explicitly targeted against a group that i’m part of. It’s a little shocking to see this kind of vitriol towards people like me just because of our gender. While Solanas does have several beliefs that I agree with, like being anti-war and not being a huge fan of Andy Warhol, overall this just reads as a series of angry ramblings. Other manifestos i’ve read, like Mein Kampf and Industrial Society and it’s Future at least attempt to seriously analyze society and present solutions, entirely flawed as they may be, but the SCUM Manifesto is content with thinking up hypothetical issues and presenting hypothetical solutions that all rely on one initially sharing Solanas’ worldview. While it may not be an expecially dangerous work, and I don’t think it deserves censorship, I doubt there’s much merit to be gained from it’s analysis.

When watching Triumph of the Will, one of the things that stands out the most is just how grandiose everything is. The movie opens up with an aerial shot, flying through the clouds, and descends until you can see the city of Nuremberg, which almost looks like it’s out of a fairytale. This continues as the movie goes on, with large displays of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, enormous swastikas, and giant eagles that loom over the shots as if the film itself is trying to point the the apparent power of the Nazi movement.

One thing that strongly stood out to me was how disturbingly similar it is to the modern world. In fact, when Hitler first got off the plane at the start of the movie, the enormous crowd of cheering people almost reminded me of the clip of the Beatles first arriving in New York. The people in the film look like normal, friendly people, individuals who I would walk past every day, and that’s because they were. The film shows the more “human” side of the Nazi party, which is where the danger of harmful ideologies like Nazism comes from. Anyone can become entangled in them, and by recognizing the Nazis as humans, it allows us to better identify the causes behind their beliefs, and ultimately prevent anything like the Nazi movement from occurring again.

In fact, the movie takes great strides to try and legitimize the Nazi party as the only reasonable way forward for Germans. A lengthy scene shows Hitler talking to the gathered members of the Hitler youth. This scene, as well as others showing Nazi officials interacting with Nuremburg’s children, appears to be a way to further endear the party in the eyes of the German people.

Interestingly, despite the facade of power projected by Hitler during the rallies, there appear to be cracks forming. Hitler speaks extensively about the SA (more commonly known as the brownshirts), reassuring them that they won’t be dissolved and that they’re an important part of the movement. I was curious about this, and as it turns out that this movie was made shortly after the Night of the Long Knives, where the SA leadership was purged by the SS. In light of this, it makes sense why Hitler seemed so desperate to maintain order; the party was undergoing a serious period of infighting, and Hitler didn’t want the cause losing any momentum.

Overall, Triumph makes great strides to show off Hitler’s vision of the Nazi party, and I think that it does have quite a lot of value from a historical perspective. While it does serve as propaganda, I think that that negative is outweighed by the fact that it lets viewers get a look into the mechanics of how strength and power is projected, and how even the most ordinary-looking people can become swept up into dangerous ideologies.

The goal of this paper is to understand how often people, who speak out against societal norms, get punished. There are many cases we learn about in school of people who took a public role in speaking out and then facing some form of retributions in return. For each person I investigate I want to understand what they did, how was the public reception to what they did, what were the consequences for the public position they took, and where they ended up as a result for it. The people I’m researching won’t be just activist who got in trouble. I’m interested in looking into Malala, a women’s activist from Pakistan who protested against the Taliban banning girls from school, Malcolm X a Black activist from the United States who advocated for black empowerment, and Galileo a scientist who said argued for the heliocentric theory against the predominant Catholic church. I am aiming to keep this paper diverse in people who were shunned for a belief.
            This idea originally stemmed from learning the context behind the 120 Days of Sodom. Although de Sade himself faced no real consequences from his book, the book eventually became a piece of debate in communities of research and censorship of books.

References I intent to use:

X, Malcolm, and production company Educational Video Group. Great Speeches Video Series. Volume 16, Malcolm X : “Democracy Is Hypocrisy” Speech. Educational Video Group, 1960.

X, Malcolm, and production company Educational Video Group. Malcolm X : “Who Taught You to Hate?” Speech Excerpt. Educational Video Group, 1962.

Glyde, Tania. “Malala: Agent of Change.” The Lancet [London], vol. 386, no. 10006, Nov. 2015, pp. 1814–1814, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00770-9.

Attia, Shaimaa Mohamed Shehata. “Malala’s Mission: Challenging Taliban Rule and Patriarchal Norms in Pakistani Education.” Maǧallaẗ Kulliyyaẗ Al-Adāb Wa Al-ʿulūm Al-Insāniyyaẗ – Ǧāmiʿaẗ Qanāẗ Al-Siwaīs, no. 49, 2024, pp. 457–82.

Liana, Zbigniew. “Criteria for the Acceptability of Scientific Theories as Locus Theologicus: A Methodological Analysis of Catholic Church’s Reactions to the Cases of Galileo and Darwin (Bellarmine—Pius XII—John Paul II).” Religions (Basel, Switzerland ) [Basel], vol. 16, no. 2, Feb. 2025, p. 153, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16020153.