I was deeply touched while reading this piece - I felt that Powell was speaking almost directly to me. I was one of those children who suffered from a learning challenge. I had a very strong case of ADHD, and I'll tell you what I stuck out like a sore thumb. I was ostracized by both teachers and peers. In my isolation I found a sense of control in software development.
During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives and weapons. In high school I experimented with drugs and got very close to flunking out. I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit. I was very angry and paranoid, and the idiotic policies put in place during the Bush years had a lot to do with that.
Nowadays I'm a completely different person. I'm deeply religious, I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier person. I'm about to graduate with a degree in biochemistry from a great college. I believe the world would be a much better place if people would try harder to understand and love each other and show mercy. Reading this piece by one of my childhood mentors very much evoked a feeling of vindication.
> I had a very strong case of ADHD, and I'll tell you what I stuck out like a sore thumb.
Yup
> During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives and weapons.
Yup
> I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit.
Yup
> I was very angry and paranoid
Still fighting the anger I have from no where. I am not paranoid though the Snowden stuff is making me somewhat.
> I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier person.
These are things I try to do otherwise I find myself acting ill towards people.
I am not sure which hit me more the article or your comment. Glad to see there are others who acted the way I did in my younger days and are striving to become a better person everyday. This past May I finally graduated from a decent regional college with a degree in Information Systems and now have an awesome job doing what I love.
> The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence.
I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of the most debated topics in all of human history. The leaders of almost every major revolution eventually reached precisely the opposite conclusion.
The book may in fact do harm in the hands of those who are rash and quick to anger. But I don't think that has anything to do with something that is inherently illogical.
> I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of the most debated topics in all of human history.
You make an excellent point, one which Noam Chomsky addressed by saying[1]
> "If we're interested in let's say diminishing the amount of violence in the world, it's at least arguable and perhaps even sometimes true that a terroristic act does diminish the amount of violence in the world. Hence a person who is opposed to violence will not be opposed to that terroristic act."
Edit: The context was the use of violence to stop a hypothetical "train" from transporting munitions to help the criminal US war in Vietnam.
Moreover, our culture has a tendency to touch up history to downplay successful uses of violence, and emphasize the success of nonviolence.
One salient point I found mentioned about this was in HPMoR, where Harry mentions that Gandhi endorsed the use of nonviolent resistance if the Nazis invaded India. Of course, we know exactly what would have happened if they had done that, and we also have a pretty good idea of what would have happened if the Allies hadn't used violence during WWII.
It's ugly, but the fact is that real life isn't a movie, and the good guys don't always win just because that's what's just.
> I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact.
I didn't take it as indisputable. Instead it is taken in the context of where he is. Specifically being a minor part of a major machine, acting out to damage the machine won't do anything other than cause more violence.
Quite. Bloodlust is a dangerous thing, but total pacifism is still a fairly radical idea that I don't think many people actually buy into when the rubber meets the road. Pacifism has claimed few victories, suggesting that historic incidents could have been better solved with pacifism is a good way to make yourself look very silly very quickly.
Pacifism is a tool, not a silver bullet. For revolutionaries and reformationists, there is no silver bullet.
>> The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence.
> The leaders of almost every major revolution eventually reached precisely the opposite conclusion.
> I don't think that has anything to do with something that is inherently illogical.
(I think my editing has preserved the spirit of the letter.) I would say it is deeply illogical. You would have a hard time convincing me that any of those leaders have managed to prevent any amount of violence through the use of violence. I don't see any progress in the erradication of illegal violence, and legal violence is more violent than ever.
The notion is definitelly illogical. What your reasoning shows is that the leaders of almost every major revolution had pride. Pride is inherently illogical.
Oh, and might I add, The Anarchist Cookbook isn't flawed so much in that it presents violence as a means to an end, but rather that actually following the recipes will likely get you killed or maimed. Hopefully people reading the book already knew this.
>Oh, and might I add, The Anarchist Cookbook isn't flawed so much in that it presents violence as a means to an end, but rather that actually following the recipes will likely get you killed or maimed. Hopefully people reading the book already knew this.
The Vice's Guide episode where they try out recipes makes this crystal clear. The napalm experiment was probably the most eye opening.
I'm not familiar with the book; are the recipes simply handling dangerous chemicals? Are the methods shoddy? Or are they written intending to harm the preparer as a form of sabotage?
I don't know. I went to a county fair recently where the local city police were proudly displaying their DHS funded heavily armored, turreted and gun ported urban assault vehicle. I was frankly utterly appalled that a bunch of local yokels ordered around by some set of corrupt local politicians would be allowed to run around with military grade hardware when there's a national guard armory not far away that should be much more qualified and better trusted with that same piece of equipment.
So with rampant stupidity and reports of massive swat team abuse cropping up in the US what tools are available to the citizens to counter this? Seems the anarchist cookbook is probably on that list.
A tool is a tool, people really need to be encouraged to use them responsibly and punished if used irresponsibly.
"a bunch of local yokels ordered around by some set of corrupt local politicians would be allowed to run around with military grade hardware ..."
This won't last long. When municipalities find out how much it costs to maintain these "freebies" they'll put them out for bid. You can buy one and park it on your deer-hunting lease.
Why would one use The Anarchist Cookbook to defend themselves against heavily armed cops? I think a gun would be more effective than a tennis ball filled with match heads.
So the violence of the ANC didn't end the violence of Apartheid, and the violence of the Allies didn't end the violence of the Axis?
edit: I'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon their non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK achieved.
Some clarification on where the ANC were coming from, courtesy of Nelson Mandela in The Sacred Warrior (2000):
> Gandhi remained committed to nonviolence; I followed the Gandhian strategy for as long as I could, but then there came a point in our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be countered through passive resistance alone. We founded Umkhonto we Sizwe and added a military dimension to our struggle. Even then, we chose sabotage because it did not involve the loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Militant action became part of the African agenda officially supported by the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) following my address to the Pan-African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) in 1962, in which I stated, "Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence."
> I'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon their non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK achieved.
You say that like it's an argument in favor of violence and against pacifism. In those two cases, the violent side lost specifically because they were violent.
I'm not convinced that violence is never called for, but pacifism clearly can work in at least some circumstances.
There's a place for that but it should be a last resort. The Nixon administration was more afraid of the collective size of the protest movement - not the violence by the radical fringe.
Yes. It's the personal statement of a very privileged person who (like the rest of the 60s) was probably inspired to empathy with the civil rights movement triggered by the threat of the draft, but has now transferred his empathy to the more exotic minorities populating his new life of international adventure.
Now his personal feeling of threat comes more from the revolution than the state, so his opinion of revolution has changed.
Hopefully the consolation that no one will be able to download, take out from a library or buy his book without being put on a list by secret intelligence services will make him feel a little better about writing it.
"The basic premise behind the Cookbook is profoundly flawed"
I didn't think the cookbook had a premise. I enjoyed it because it was full of fun sounding, curious articles that one would never find elsewhere. It gave a sense of adventure and quiet rebellion to the reader and it could be enjoyed in peaceful solitude. It could also be used as a guide for fun projects with friends ("let's try to make thermite!") or just some exciting group discussion.
I agree with the author. Terrorists rarely if ever achieve their stated goals, and just end up hurting innocents. But he is wrong that violence can't be used to prevent violence.
>The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only solution is violence, actual or threatened. That's all Evil understands.
Well they managed to scare the whole world pretty good in the last decade. With the help of our governments of course but in the end everyone says, it's their doing.
This is an insult to the intelligence of the children. You're claiming that they are so poor at learning, and you are so superior at learning, that all of their learning combined is dwarfed by the learning of a single man--you.
Any teacher who learns more than his collective students is a failed teacher. Period. Such a teacher's life has been worthless--this is a mathematical fact.
Being proud of gaining more from your volunteer service than did the people you are supposed to be helping is not something to brag about. It is morally reprehensible and brings to mind all of the criticisms of poverty tourism that have so often been levied against your type of exploiter.
Usually, the money that wealthy poverty tourists spend on travel would be thousands of times more efficient had they just donated that money.
You are gleeful that you profited more from your volunteer work than the supposed recipients did. Your self-reported tale of exploitation is disgusting.
Dang right it was flawed!
Especially the part about being able to smoke banana peels.
No buzz and this (then) 16 year old had a sore throat for a week!
I doubt the publication makes one iota difference to the individual. The person you are worried about is already in that state of mind and there are now an infinite number of other resources (the Internet) for them to draw upon. If you are truly concerned, write a new book entitled something like "If You Want to Read the Anarchist Cookbook, You Should Read This Book Instead!"
"The Cookbook serves no purpose other than a commercial one for the publisher" -- and that's precisely why it won't go out of print. Regardless of the intentions of the writer and the reader, it is a very popular book and therefore something lucrative to sell. If it were to disappear from print, ironically, it would make it even more valuable.
I was an anarchist in high school too. I was an over-achieving individualist who took personal affront to the norms and rules imposed on all school kids, and people in general.
I researched anarchy philosophy and policy as it presented itself over the years. It worked for me: I felt that people could be trusted to behave correctly without the imposition of external rules and laws and the violent enforcement thereof. Obviously I was wrong. But I remain basically committed to my original ideals: an ethically motivated individual does not need to be ruled by fear and force. What, however, does that same individual do when confronted by the violent - or even not so violent but still evil - application of the rule of law?
Anarchocapitalism has some interesting answers to this question. It's not a utopian variant that believes everyone can simply be trusted not to behave badly.
Off-topic: thank you mods for changing the original submission title, it was quite inflammatory.
Terrorism -- or (more to the point) political expression by violence -- is not at all a means to end violence, and it would be foolish to pretend that it can ever be. As a matter of fact that is the point of the submitted article. The original title claimed that the Cookbook's author felt terrorism is "a worthless strategy" but such a title contrasts so strongly with the actual article that it boggles my mind how the original submitter even came to that conclusion.
Terrorism is just another form of political expression, and calling it worthless is like calling a hammer worthless where a screwdriver would be more appropriate.
Terrorism is such an overloaded word that I think it is next to useless if you want to convey any sort of point clearly.
It is better to speak of things more specifically. Topics like assassinations, industrial sabotage, propaganda, and bombing campaigns all deserve individual treatment; talking about "terrorism" has the tendency to lump them together.
Some of the things that frequently fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" do have the potential to end violence. Even things that are violent.
Because of the fuzzy and subjective nature of the word "terrorism" it is always possible to assert that examples of "terrorism" working are not examples of "true" terrorism, but if we are wary of that loophole by being purposely inclusive, there are examples in history of terrorism ending violence. The show trial and execution of Nicolae Ceaușescu is an example that springs to mind immediately. Allied resistance movements during the Second World War are another (such as Operation Heads, an assassination program run by the Polish resistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads).
It isn't about using violence against the government. It is about getting the government to reform itself to stop using violence to solve world and domestic problems.
We don't need violent protests now that we have the Internet and can leak documents exposing government corruption and write about truths to inform people and allow them to vote in different politicians.
The most violent thing to do is to do nothing to change the status quo because the status quo is upheld by perpetual institutionalized violence.
Today, however, the violence of the current regime goes beyond just violence against other humans. Today the current regime is committing violence against the human species, and threatening that species with extinction.
Violent acts that may stop the extinction of life on Earth are not only justified... they are morally obligatory.
We are in the last hours of humanity. The species won't be saved by squeamish old boomers.
I see another premise. Which is, without knowledge, one has fewer options to resist violence. Now as to the utility of the knowledge provided, who can say?
[+] [-] pvnick|12 years ago|reply
During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives and weapons. In high school I experimented with drugs and got very close to flunking out. I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit. I was very angry and paranoid, and the idiotic policies put in place during the Bush years had a lot to do with that.
Nowadays I'm a completely different person. I'm deeply religious, I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier person. I'm about to graduate with a degree in biochemistry from a great college. I believe the world would be a much better place if people would try harder to understand and love each other and show mercy. Reading this piece by one of my childhood mentors very much evoked a feeling of vindication.
[+] [-] wil421|12 years ago|reply
Yup
> During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives and weapons.
Yup
> I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit.
Yup
> I was very angry and paranoid
Still fighting the anger I have from no where. I am not paranoid though the Snowden stuff is making me somewhat.
> I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier person.
These are things I try to do otherwise I find myself acting ill towards people.
I am not sure which hit me more the article or your comment. Glad to see there are others who acted the way I did in my younger days and are striving to become a better person everyday. This past May I finally graduated from a decent regional college with a degree in Information Systems and now have an awesome job doing what I love.
[+] [-] gonehome|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LukeWalsh|12 years ago|reply
I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of the most debated topics in all of human history. The leaders of almost every major revolution eventually reached precisely the opposite conclusion.
The book may in fact do harm in the hands of those who are rash and quick to anger. But I don't think that has anything to do with something that is inherently illogical.
[+] [-] robbyking|12 years ago|reply
You make an excellent point, one which Noam Chomsky addressed by saying[1]
> "If we're interested in let's say diminishing the amount of violence in the world, it's at least arguable and perhaps even sometimes true that a terroristic act does diminish the amount of violence in the world. Hence a person who is opposed to violence will not be opposed to that terroristic act."
Edit: The context was the use of violence to stop a hypothetical "train" from transporting munitions to help the criminal US war in Vietnam.
[1] http://www.eduqna.com/Quotations/495-quotations-5.html
[+] [-] mistercow|12 years ago|reply
One salient point I found mentioned about this was in HPMoR, where Harry mentions that Gandhi endorsed the use of nonviolent resistance if the Nazis invaded India. Of course, we know exactly what would have happened if they had done that, and we also have a pretty good idea of what would have happened if the Allies hadn't used violence during WWII.
It's ugly, but the fact is that real life isn't a movie, and the good guys don't always win just because that's what's just.
[+] [-] Guvante|12 years ago|reply
I didn't take it as indisputable. Instead it is taken in the context of where he is. Specifically being a minor part of a major machine, acting out to damage the machine won't do anything other than cause more violence.
[+] [-] Crito|12 years ago|reply
Pacifism is a tool, not a silver bullet. For revolutionaries and reformationists, there is no silver bullet.
[+] [-] enriquepablo|12 years ago|reply
> The leaders of almost every major revolution eventually reached precisely the opposite conclusion.
> I don't think that has anything to do with something that is inherently illogical.
(I think my editing has preserved the spirit of the letter.) I would say it is deeply illogical. You would have a hard time convincing me that any of those leaders have managed to prevent any amount of violence through the use of violence. I don't see any progress in the erradication of illegal violence, and legal violence is more violent than ever.
The notion is definitelly illogical. What your reasoning shows is that the leaders of almost every major revolution had pride. Pride is inherently illogical.
[+] [-] vezzy-fnord|12 years ago|reply
This editorial review on the Amazon page for the book might offer some more insight: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974458902
Oh, and might I add, The Anarchist Cookbook isn't flawed so much in that it presents violence as a means to an end, but rather that actually following the recipes will likely get you killed or maimed. Hopefully people reading the book already knew this.
[+] [-] mcphilip|12 years ago|reply
The Vice's Guide episode where they try out recipes makes this crystal clear. The napalm experiment was probably the most eye opening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIMuoUcc1s
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a8da6b0c91d|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bnolsen|12 years ago|reply
So with rampant stupidity and reports of massive swat team abuse cropping up in the US what tools are available to the citizens to counter this? Seems the anarchist cookbook is probably on that list.
A tool is a tool, people really need to be encouraged to use them responsibly and punished if used irresponsibly.
[+] [-] giardini|12 years ago|reply
This won't last long. When municipalities find out how much it costs to maintain these "freebies" they'll put them out for bid. You can buy one and park it on your deer-hunting lease.
[+] [-] watty|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|12 years ago|reply
edit: I'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon their non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK achieved.
[+] [-] Theodores|12 years ago|reply
> Gandhi remained committed to nonviolence; I followed the Gandhian strategy for as long as I could, but then there came a point in our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be countered through passive resistance alone. We founded Umkhonto we Sizwe and added a military dimension to our struggle. Even then, we chose sabotage because it did not involve the loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Militant action became part of the African agenda officially supported by the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) following my address to the Pan-African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) in 1962, in which I stated, "Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence."
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|12 years ago|reply
You say that like it's an argument in favor of violence and against pacifism. In those two cases, the violent side lost specifically because they were violent.
I'm not convinced that violence is never called for, but pacifism clearly can work in at least some circumstances.
[+] [-] pstuart|12 years ago|reply
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec11/nixont...
[+] [-] grantlmiller|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|12 years ago|reply
Now his personal feeling of threat comes more from the revolution than the state, so his opinion of revolution has changed.
Hopefully the consolation that no one will be able to download, take out from a library or buy his book without being put on a list by secret intelligence services will make him feel a little better about writing it.
[+] [-] wibkemarianne|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grannyg00se|12 years ago|reply
I didn't think the cookbook had a premise. I enjoyed it because it was full of fun sounding, curious articles that one would never find elsewhere. It gave a sense of adventure and quiet rebellion to the reader and it could be enjoyed in peaceful solitude. It could also be used as a guide for fun projects with friends ("let's try to make thermite!") or just some exciting group discussion.
[+] [-] totalrobe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dj-wonk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Houshalter|12 years ago|reply
>The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only solution is violence, actual or threatened. That's all Evil understands.
-Robert Bruce Thompson
[+] [-] aluhut|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rch|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_H...
[+] [-] ececconi|12 years ago|reply
Very great statement. I've done volunteer work before and have come to the same realization.
[+] [-] wibkemarianne|12 years ago|reply
Any teacher who learns more than his collective students is a failed teacher. Period. Such a teacher's life has been worthless--this is a mathematical fact.
Being proud of gaining more from your volunteer service than did the people you are supposed to be helping is not something to brag about. It is morally reprehensible and brings to mind all of the criticisms of poverty tourism that have so often been levied against your type of exploiter.
Usually, the money that wealthy poverty tourists spend on travel would be thousands of times more efficient had they just donated that money.
You are gleeful that you profited more from your volunteer work than the supposed recipients did. Your self-reported tale of exploitation is disgusting.
[+] [-] jqm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] transfire|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rexreed|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brettvallis|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etherael|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
Terrorism -- or (more to the point) political expression by violence -- is not at all a means to end violence, and it would be foolish to pretend that it can ever be. As a matter of fact that is the point of the submitted article. The original title claimed that the Cookbook's author felt terrorism is "a worthless strategy" but such a title contrasts so strongly with the actual article that it boggles my mind how the original submitter even came to that conclusion.
Terrorism is just another form of political expression, and calling it worthless is like calling a hammer worthless where a screwdriver would be more appropriate.
[+] [-] Crito|12 years ago|reply
It is better to speak of things more specifically. Topics like assassinations, industrial sabotage, propaganda, and bombing campaigns all deserve individual treatment; talking about "terrorism" has the tendency to lump them together.
Some of the things that frequently fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" do have the potential to end violence. Even things that are violent.
Because of the fuzzy and subjective nature of the word "terrorism" it is always possible to assert that examples of "terrorism" working are not examples of "true" terrorism, but if we are wary of that loophole by being purposely inclusive, there are examples in history of terrorism ending violence. The show trial and execution of Nicolae Ceaușescu is an example that springs to mind immediately. Allied resistance movements during the Second World War are another (such as Operation Heads, an assassination program run by the Polish resistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads).
[+] [-] orionblastar|12 years ago|reply
We don't need violent protests now that we have the Internet and can leak documents exposing government corruption and write about truths to inform people and allow them to vote in different politicians.
[+] [-] wibkemarianne|12 years ago|reply
Today, however, the violence of the current regime goes beyond just violence against other humans. Today the current regime is committing violence against the human species, and threatening that species with extinction.
Violent acts that may stop the extinction of life on Earth are not only justified... they are morally obligatory.
We are in the last hours of humanity. The species won't be saved by squeamish old boomers.
[+] [-] fsckin|12 years ago|reply
http://www.salon.com/2000/09/18/anarchy/
[+] [-] squozzer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] escherba|12 years ago|reply
* Year 1969. Writes the Anarchist Cookbook.
* Years 1973-75. Becomes a teacher.
Interpret at will.