Worst Misnomer candidate here. Though introductory essay is written by someone who claims to be an anarchist, it contains some odd proclamations, such as the claim that Marx in Capital contends that state socialism is ‘feudal reactionary’ (12); this may well be true, though I can’t recall the passage, and no citation is provided. It is nevertheless contrary to the well-known passages from the Critique of the Gotha Programme wherein the famous two-phase revolution is laid out: socialism first, wherein the state is used to develop the productive forces and protect the revolution from the reactionaries, and communism second, wherein the state withers away and everyone basks in awesomeness.Text proper is a mess. Proclaims that it is addressed to the “silent majority” so that they might “protect themselves against the fascists, capitalists, and communists” (27). States without irony that “the principles the United States was born with are about the best there are. So now revolution comes to mean revitalization, bringing America back to where she was two hundred years ago. This is the first time that I’ve thought of myself as a reactionary” (id.). Alrighty, then!Author contends that “the only laws that an individual can truly respect and obey are those he instills in himself” (29). Am not seeing how this is part of anarchist doctrine; it is rather the primary principle, if it is in fact a principle, underlying the practice of lumpenized antisocial nihilists.Chapter 1 concerns narcotics. There is no theoretical elaboration of WTF this has to do with anarchist political doctrine. It is certainly a text on the culinary arts, as it includes a recipe for marihuana brownies (37), inter alia. Credibility is damaged to the extent that author is apparently sufficiently credulous to believe that banana peels are intoxicants (55 ff.). Dude also embraces nutmeg and glue as intoxicants (58) as well as venomous toads (57). FFS. Is this Beavis & Butthead? FFS.Chapter 2 concerns surveillance and related topics—generally a bunch of now-antiquated wiretapping discussion. Apparently, “the real duty of the revolutionary is to create and expose intolerable oppression” (61) (emphasis added). ORLY?! We learn that “so-called ‘revolutionary’ students in the colleges and universities are fighting for abstract ideals” (id.), which is bad, mmkay, whereas folks in the “rural South” are fighting for their “communities” (id.). Revolutionaries who work with unions nevertheless will never form a bond with the proletariat “by shouting Marxist dogma” (id.). So, yeah, barf. Advocates by contrast that the “same type of terrorism is being practiced in every ghetto of this country today [i.e., state on citizen violence], and it is my firm belief that the only way to stop it is to show everyone what terrorism is all about, and that two can play at the same game”(64). Charming.Includes, in a surreal maneuver for an alleged revolutionary, a listing of shoppes wherein one might purchase electronics equipment for surveillance & countersurveillance purposes (70-71)—which is essentially an advertisement. Level of intellectual rigor is otherwise revealed in passages such as: America at this point is operating on a life-size Monopoly board. Everyone who isn’t in jail or going directly to jail is buying and selling thousands of pieces of paper, with absolute seriousness of purpose, unable to realize that there will only be one winner, and when he gets out of jail, he’s going to kick all of their asses. (71)In boasting of how much ‘research’ he conducted in order to draft the ‘cookbook,’ dude “encompassed almost all extremities of the political spectrum, from far left to far right. These extremities are so alike, and could be so powerful if they ever get over their preconceived impressions of each other and started to communicate” (71). Ugh. What possibly could the teabaggers and the KKK and the birchers and the objectivists and the Minutemen and the Idaho panhandle fascists and the Montana separatists and the southern secessionists and the mad NRx internet fedora-hatters communicate to someone like me, a Frankfurt Marxist attorney with training in the arts, hostility for religion and nationalism, and sympathy for post-structuralism? There is no common ground there; there can be no common ground. Weirdly cites to Nkrumah for the proposition that the revolution must always communicate the truth to the people at multiple levels (72). Whatever do you mean, Mr. Anarchist Cooker? How can an anarchist who has a right-wing background understand or relate to a left-wing anarchist, who uses Marxist terminology? This forces the underground to communicate with many different frames of reference. This hasn’t happened in this country: Everyone from far left to the far right is hung up with dogmatic ideals, overused terminology, and is absolutely blind to practicality. (id).(Emphasis added).Down my way, we refer to this as severe Dunning-Kruger effect.In the section on sabotage involving explosives, dude has the unmitigated gall to proclaim that “I do not speak of the tactics of nihilism, breaking windows and setting garbage cans on fire, for they accomplish nothing” (74). No, not nihilistic at all; rather, “I viewed myself as a saver of identities, as the Messiah of the Spirit of Individualism” (id.); but “there people didn’t want to be saved” (id.). So: “I was going to turn them all on to acid, but then I decided that a better tactic would be to screw up the object of their emulation, the computer” (id.). (So, is this just Kaczynski’s primitivism?)Operative principles, disclosed incrementally like bread crumbs in the forest of faerie, do not suggest any leftwing bona fides: There is no justice in bureaucracy for the individual, for bureaucracy caters only to itself. The writers, artists, and poets of the revolution will have a job that has never before in history been so great, for they must create a value structure for the New World, for The New American. (76)And just in case the Nietzschean overtones are too subtle in that bit, it follows up with self-overcoming obsessiveness, also straight from the Zarathustra: “To be successful, man must change himself, the individual must have a revolution within himself” (id).Chapter 3 is weapon porn. Begins with the lumpenized antisocial nihilist premise that “There is no justice left in the system. The only real justice is that which the individual creates for himself, and the individual is helpless without a gun” (78). Good job? Candor: “This may sound like the dogma expounded by radical rightwing groups, like the Minute Men. It is” (id.). (cf. my comments on the Minute Men manual.)Why ever would he mess with this stuff? “Unity is the only way in which the people in this country can overthrow the fascists, communists, capitalists, and all the other assholes who claim running a representative government is so difficult” (id.) Uh?Begins the gun porn section with foreplay regarding hand-to-hand combats, including gems such as “a clapping motion over the victim’s ears can kill him also immediately” (79). There follows a bunch of bullshit on knives, improvised weapons, and so on. And then guns. Guns after guns. Pages and pages of pistols and rifles, with prices and places to shop. It’s a fucking joke; it’s fucking gross. (Thereafter author presents poison gas recipes, including diagrams of laboratory setups.) Along with prices, it has drawings; it is accordingly reminiscent of a Dungeons & Dragons weaponry manual, but only for lumpenized pseudo-radicals who want to overthrow da gubmint in order to support da Constatooshun. (A fairly amazing view, considering that the government currently existing in the United States is precisely what is described in the Constitution thereof. Duh?) By contrast, one'd think that a proper anarchist would disagree vehemently with the Constitution (NB: his statements otherwise that the only law and justice that matter are self-oriented.)Advises that “the major cause of the failure of the Minute-Men” is that “they have the weapons, but not the training or the technical know-how” (87), citing again weirdly to Nkrumah for the proposition that the guerrilla must be trained in the “justness and the reality of his cause” (id.). “It is impossible to explain Mao’s principles to a 14-year old. For that reason, the educators of the revolution must get rid of the archaic terminology, and speak to people, rather than down to them” (id.), because apparently the purpose of education is to flatter & comfort, the reaffirmation & reinscription of error, rather than to diagnose & cure, the confrontation with & uplifting from idiocy. Motherfucker. Motherfucker.Author’s enlightened ideas on firearms: “Every person, whether in wartime or not, should keep a pistol and rifle in his house at all times” (93). “A true man [!], in the real sense of the word [as opposed to the false sense?], is like a wild animal [?], in that his freedom, and the freedom of his family, is based on one factor: his ability to protect himself and his family [women can’t have grrrrrns, I guess?] from outside restrictions” (id). Apparently the United States has evolved to the point that “men believe they are men, just because of their birthright,” which is not really controversial, since the vast majority of persons are in fact assigned a sex at birth, but “if that is true, then, by the same logic, an animal held captive in a zoo is still a wild free beast” (id.). Because being not a ‘man’ is apparently exactly identical to being caged in a zoo? Is that uncharitable? Not really: A male must make himself a man, he must enable himself to stand up on two legs, unafraid because he has confidence in his own security and in his own power. There is no place for emotionally or politically cuckolded [!] people in the society I speak of. Survival of the fittest. If we must have violence, then let it be real violence, let it be for survival, and not halfway around the world for ‘ideals.’ Emasculation, if allowed to take place, can lower a man or woman [!] to the state of a domesticated, well-trained animal: performing tricks, begging for food, and relying totally on an outside force for his right to survive. (id.) So, yeah. It’s indistinguishable from neo-reactionary and other crypto-fascistic bullshit.Chapter 4 concerns explosives. The political maturity is well-established by comments such as The actual application of explosives can be a really thrilling and satisfying experience. I have a friend who worked with demolitions in the Middle East, and he has told me on several occasions that an explosion for him was an experience very similar to a sexual orgasm. (112)We are therefore not surprised when he outs himself conclusively as an arriere garde philistine: When I use the term revolution, I do not use it in the same context or with the same meaning of Che Guevara, or Lenin, or anyone else. I see ‘the revolution’ as a humanistic change, which may or may not incorporate violence. It must be a revitalization [cf. Griffin! Cf. Paxton! Cf. Neumann! Cf. Lemkin!] of the American system to take us back [?!] to the real moral and political principles adopted in 1776 [!!!!!!!]. Maybe I am not a revolutionary [ORLY!], but then it is all terminology, and more intolerance [!] has sprung out of semantic misunderstandings than any other cause [?!?!]. (112-13) Thereafter follow instructions (who knows how reliable) for the home manufacture of nitro glycerin, trinitrotoluene, and other explosives—pages and pages and pages. A good indicator of author’s sense of responsibility: Probably the most hazardous explosive compound of all is nitrogen tri-iodide. Strangely enough, it is very popular with high schools chemists, who do not have the vaguest idea of what they are doing [whereas author by contrast has a PhD in applied chemistry?]. The reason for its popularity may be the ready availability of the ingredients, but it is so sensitive to friction that a fly landing on it has been known to detonate it [?]. The recipe has only been included as a warning and as a curiosity. It should not be used. (121)After many pages of bombs and traps and whatnot, concludes with a political postscript, wherein author wonders why “with so many so-called ‘intelligent’ people running about that we still had a state, a government, a bunch of archaic laws” (154). Rather, “I don’t particularly care if it’s legal, illegal, moral, immoral, or amoral. I want to do it, so I do it. The only laws a man can truly respect are the ones he makes for himself” (id). Needless to say, this is very far removed from any known leftwing doctrine, and is contrary to most traditional rightwing doctrines. It is manifestly lumpenized antisocial nihilism. Cites then to Heinlein’s Moon is a Harsh Mistress for the proposition that taxation is evil (id). Author then proceeds to offer “common sense legal advice” (he is not an attorney, as far as I can discern). Gems here include the thesis that “If you are held for questioning, you are treated the same way as if you were arrested, but you have none of the legal rights you have if you are under arrest” (155)—this is a false proposition of law in the United States, incidentally—and that “Judges get pissed off when defendants try to defend themselves. I was once called ‘a dirty layman,’ when trying to defend myself in a civil case, by some old asshole judge” (156). (NB: ‘defend oneself’ is normally a criminal law concept; author means that he proceeded pro se in a civil matter, and apparently presented disingenuous arguments in court.)Concludes with the illiberal proposition that “Freedom is based on respect, and respect must be earned by the spilling of blood” (157). So, yeah, one of the worst texts ever written, up there with Ayn Rand, Papa Freds Hayek, and so on.Recommended for those with an absolute hatred of vending machines, readers who hate demonstrations because they are sponsored by the government to give cops a heyday, and persons who do not know what they are doing and therefore the chances are extremely great that they will blow their heads off.
In my personal library. Well. This was... interesting. Also slightly disappointing. I'd been hearing about this book in hushed conversations for as long as I can recall, and by its very controversial nature I'd determined one day to read it. I thought it was relatively modern. I was saddened to learn it was written in the late 60s. Result: much of the technological tomfoolery is no longer valid. Still, there are some cool things: recipes for LSD; how to hotwire a pre-1964 Chevy; how to build silencers; recipes for nitroglycerin, TNT; and the best placings for those concoctions to disable various types of bridges. But the instructions seemed very rudimentary to me. They mostly reminded me of the Monty Python skit where they give you instructions on how to play the flute (see link. It's well worth the watch).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyI...Anyway, the most interesting aspect is how I acquired this book. Found it at an estate sale in my neighbourhood. The house was literally over-packed with thousands of old books ($1 each!), mostly junk like Reader's Digest Condensed versions of Dickens, Proust, Hugo. The Cookbook seemed very out of place, and indeed, out of place is where I found it. With books all over the house, I found the Cookbook sitting by itself on a table of knickknacks, supervised by one of the sellers. Being that the Cookbook seemed intentionally separated from the thousands of other tomes, I assumed its price might be equally different. I asked, "How much?"He said, "Not for sale. Gonna burn it later today."I replied, "Hahaha. I understand. You could get put on a federal watch list just for owning that thing".He responded with something akin to, "Yep," which carried a tone of "I'm not gonna let this book get into the hands of any impressionable youth. 'Murica's not gonna be compromised, not on my watch."And I walked away, feigning as much ambivalence as possible, all the while knowing in my heart that I was not going to let that man burn that book. No, not on my watch.I continued perusing the junk-- old records, 8 track tapes, lamps with dingy shades, though never letting that book out of my peripheral vision for more than 30 seconds. Guy at the knickknack table seemed pretty sure of himself, as if the very fact that he had the book sitting on the table in front of him meant that the book's fate was solidified, and that mere hours hence, it would be ashes.I wandered about the house for an agonising 25 minutes, surreptitiously glancing at him at his table, listening as he answered questions from little old ladies about the prices of small porcelain doggy salt-and-pepper shakers. I waited, biding my time. He couldn't remain seated forever. Then it happened! He got up to go help some octogenarian discern the value of a piebald quilt in a bedroom.I followed them into the bedroom to gauge approximately his level of commitment regarding the negotiation of this sought-after quilt. I didn't want to make my move too soon and have him appear suddenly back at the table as I was grasping the Cookbook.The words they were exchanging gave an indication that there would have to be at least 75 more words between them before he could return to his table. Given their rates of speech and figuring in the amount of silence required between the end of one person's statement and the beginning of the other's, I calculated that I had a solid 45 second window. I made my move.I went back to the table, picked up the most famous Cookbook in the world, and took it to the sweet little lady running the register at the front door. She smiled and asked if that would be all. I said yes. She said, "That'll be one dollar".I handed her the required dollar and we exchanged thank-yous. I walked out the front door and into the most wonderfully sunshiny day I'd seen in years. Not only had I found a treasure, but I had saved a book from being burned by an information-suppressing Nazi. Life had meaning that day, my friends. Life. Had. Meaning.
Do You like book The Anarchist Cookbook (1971)?
This was one of those legendary books that was talked about on the playground in whispers. When I finally got my hands on one (found in an abandoned trailer) it was a thoroughly amaturish attempt at making a document without actually knowing anything. Now that we're in the era of the internet, you could easily surpass by a thousand-fold any information on any subject in this book in seconds. And the author is incredibly drug-centered and completely full of shit, if any freedom fighters had used this, they'd have been sitting around trying to cook up LSD and wondering why they weren't tripping. It's totally an embarrassment. You could learn more about detonating a bridge by watching Anna and the King.Don't open this book and completely undermine the awe that you held at the mere mention of this book.
—Jeremy Johnson
I recently found this in an old keepsake box and thought it was funny enough that I decided to use it for my profile pic. Don't worry, I'm not going to blow you up. In fact, I couldn't, if I was only using information from this outdated, wildly inaccurate book. As a kid, I ordered this from Barricade Books, which also offered Vietnam-era military training manuals and the like. My friends and I knew immediately from the hilariously crude illustrations and rambling diatribes that the information was suspect at best. The Poor Man's James Bond was a much more reliable book on booby traps and improvised weapons, even if it was written by a right-wing survivalist lunatic.But Cookbook is still an amusing read. I admit, we tried the "bananadine" recipe. Nothing except a coughing fit. Unbeknownst to us at the time, the idea of getting high on banana peels is a hoax, and the book's author fell for it.
—Jesse
I excitedly read this book as a teenager. It was a book that had an air of mystery surrounding it and a lot of alleged 'powers'. Much of the information was at hand for most people even when I had read this book. This was before the Internets universal existence and powers.Despite the availability of most of the information in this book, it still retained an edge of myth about it.Having said all of that when this book was written its existence was both celebrated as an expression of 'extreme' freedom of information and speech as well as it being a condemnation of such celebrations. The fear mongering surrounding it and books like this will continue until the last days human society I fear. An imagined uber villain or villains shall always lurk inside the minds of those who fear all. And the existence of such books is the apparent tool or even catalyst that some may need so as to do harm.If some one is so motivated to do great harm or criminally violate another then the existence of such a book has nothing to do with their intentions or unfortunate conduct.I personally found this book over rated but interesting. While I was 15 when I read it, I took it to be a book best read with covert elegance. Much of the excitement was in the anticipation of the book as opposed to absorbing its actual pages.A handy addition for those of many tastes. Not to be limited to mere criminals or violent anarchists.70 %
—Kym Andrew Robinson
