Anarchist Cookbook authors hopes for discontinuation (read the author review)
amazon.com
amazon.com
This knowledge cannot and should not be erased because an individual, even the original author, has concluded that violence is under no circumstance an acceptable way to prosecute change.
"But the most infamous event was when the captured men of Otranto were given the choice to convert to Islam or die; 800 of them held to their Christian faith and were beheaded en masse at a place now known as the Hill of the Martyrs. The Turkish fleet then went on to attack the cities of Vieste, Lecce, Taranto, and Brindisi, and destroyed the great library at the Monastero di San Nicholas di Casole, before returning to Ottoman territory in November."
"...it will surely surprise those who believe that millions of people died in the Spanish Inquisition to learn that throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru. Secular historians given access to the Vatican’s archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being relictus culiae saeculari. The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history, the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles."
The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day
Also, any prisoner that died pretrial is not counted, nor anyone wearing a sanbenito that was beaten to death in public.
Nor any jew, muslim, or dislikable person killed pretrial because of religous hatred.
You don't happen to have a link to the 763 page report, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition#Death_tolls
How can said practical knowledge be used for good? In the real world, I mean, not hypothetical-land? Where do you suggest I should plant my homemade bomb in order to make the world a better place, really?
You don't have to have a "big evangelical moment" to see that this book's main contribution to the world has been a bunch of teenagers blowing up either mailboxes or their own hands.
For most everyone working a 9-5 in the city with a middle-class family in the suburbs, no this book won't have any practical day to day application. But the review I'm referencing is quoted as saying, "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it,". Having the book and being knowledgable about it's contents can be argued to be akin to keeping 30 days of food in storage for emergencies.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/review/R5M42EN2525C3/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm...
You may have the impression that, like "Steal This Book", this was an interesting compendium of ideas no normal person would ever put into use. The problem was, it actually included a lot of ideas that stupid kids like me certainly would put to use.
I did have the impression that under the right circumstances, in the right climate, the book was a very useful reference. I never said that the book was safe. You may have have the impression, or experience to argue for, the dangers of this book because of certain events that may have occurred, or possibly could have occurred, after you read it at about the same age I read it.
If I may, let me abstract both of our arguments:
I say that the book is a good tool, under certain preconditions, that may help one in time of emergency. I'm talking about the book as a reference, as a tool, and a guide. And by its nature, anyone with some common sense knows that it is not a complete, concise work. There are thousands of pages omitted regarding safety. But it can point one in the right direction when it is the only thing available.
You say that the book is dangerous because 13 year old kids from Tulsa can buy materials off the shelf of retail stores and build bombs, with the possibility of killing or severely injuring themselves. You are arguing that the product of the actions derived from use of the book in an irresponsible manner are unsafe, and thus no one should have access to the material described within the book. If this is not what you are arguing about, please clarify.
The book isn't inherently dangerous. It also is not inherently safe, having it on my shelf does not make my home or family more prepared for survival than yours, if you didn't have this book on your shelf. Nor does it make my house more dangerous to be in. This book is a tool, just like a machette or toaster oven. Just because a 13 year old puts shredded newspaper in a toaster and burns his family's house down doesn't make toasters dangerous. Corollary, a 13 year old reading this book doesn't become a violent madman, until that person acts on the ideas and methods of building bombs to take to school. It is the action, like building a bomb, that is the danger, even for people trained and experienced in the field.
With every liberty man has been given a burden also comes with. We shouldn't prevent this book from being published because the fear of it being used irresponsibly is too great. We should be teaching respect and safety to the ideas presented within. No one answer will win this argument.
It should go without saying that there are many tools that, unlike toaster ovens, are not generally provided to children without supervision --- regardless of whether they can cough up the cash to buy them.
It's every bit as bad as the author says it is. But taking it out of print won't fix anything; the copy I had when I was 13 wasn't legit, and was accompanied by 8478439 pages of Usenet posts.
I'm not sure why this was left as a comment on my comment, though, since it doesn't have anything to do with it. We weren't "resorting to violence", unless "violence against garbage cans" is a political statement to you.
You also appear not to have noticed me crediting my career to the book you think I want to burn.
When something is dangerous, you have to approach it with caution. Specific knowledge (like "grounding in pyrotechnics and demolitions") lets you know how many liberties you can get away with, but in general, you just have to be cautious. Sometimes cautious is "don't do it at all", but only rarely.
A small bomb in a dirt field with nobody around doesn't really do anything dangerous. A mega-bomb in your basement does. You don't have to know much about pyrotechnics to know this, you just have to have some common sense.
Watch Mythbusters, they do it right every time. Start with small scale, if it seems to work, try a bigger version. That applies to everything.
Also: small bomb, dirt field, nobody around, "doesn't really do anything dangerous", thanks, I'll take 4 of your fingers for that assumption. Don't thank me, thank static electricity! =)
I probably knew at least that much in high school.
I'm not taking a position on whether the book should or should not be made available, but it's worth keeping in mind that the sorts of people who are most interested in trying the stuff in the book are the least mindful of the consequences of their actions. On balance, the fewer teenagers with access to thermite, the better - for themselves and us.
Don't know about that, there have been a lot of famous scientists who got their start by fiddling around with dangerous chemicals in their basements when they were teenagers.
Some people are just looking for any excuse to preach, even if it's a stretch that requires willful misinterpretation.
You didn't lose any body parts with your pipe bomb right? I hope I misread your comments.
Seriously, though, if you asked me how I got started with my career, "The Anarchist's Cookbook" would be one of the first thoughts in my head.
The topic is interesting to me because my thoughts on the book are so complicated.
I haven't read the book, but what appealed and stuck with that rebellious teenager?
Made for a great prank on the last day of school though.
And Amazon allowing the Author of the book (who has no copyrights to said material) to 'advertise' his desire to stop publication and sale of a book Amazon sells?