Tag Archives: Terrorism

The Anarchist Cookbook

Posted on by under Uncategorized

The Anarchist Cookbook, first published in 1971, is a book that contains instructions for the manufacture of explosives, rudimentary telecommunications phreaking devices, and other items. It was written by William Powell to protest United States involvement in the Vietnam War.

Contents

  • 1 Post-release history
  • 2 Relationship to anarchism
  • 3 Legality and the alleged relationship to terrorism
  • 4 Publication ceases
  • 5 References

Post-release History

Since writing the book, Powell has converted to Anglican Christianity and has attempted to have the book removed from circulation. When the book was published by Lyle Stuart, the copyright was taken out in the publisher’s name, not his, and the current publisher had no desire to remove the book from print. Powell has since created many websites devoted to the book, explaining his desire to see it removed from circulation as he no longer advocates what he had written. He wrote on one of those websites:

The book, in many respects, was a misguided product of my adolescent anger at the prospect of being drafted and sent to Vietnam to fight in a war that I did not believe in.

At the time of its publication, one Federal Bureau of Investigation memo described The Anarchist Cookbook as “one of the crudest, low-brow, paranoiac writing efforts ever attempted.”

In 2009 the magazine Vice published a brief history of the book as well as excerpted recipes. The magazine’s associate network, VBS.tv, also broadcast a documentary on the subject.

In 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released the bulk of its investigative file on The Anarchist Cookbook.

Relationship to Anarchism

Advocates of anarchism dispute the association of the book with anarchist political philosophy. The anarchist collective CrimethInc., which published the book Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook in response, denounces the earlier book, saying it was “not composed or released by anarchists, not derived from anarchist practice, not intended to promote freedom and autonomy or challenge repressive power – and was barely a cookbook, as most of the recipes in it are notoriously unreliable.”

Legality and the Alleged Relationship to Terrorism

In 2007, a seventeen-year-old British youth was arrested in Britain and faced charges under Terrorism Law in the UK for possession of this book, among other things. He was cleared of all charges in October 2008, after alleging that he was a prankster who just wanted to research fireworks and smoke bombs. He claimed that he would not have been prosecuted in this way if he had not been of Muslim background.

More recently, in County Durham, UK in 2010, Ian Davison and his son were imprisoned under anti-terrorism laws for the manufacturing of ricin, and their possession of the Anarchist Cookbook, along with its availability, was noted by the authorities.

Publication Ceases

The copyright of the book no longer belongs to its author, but to its publisher Lyle Stuart. Stuart kept publishing the book until the company was bought in 1991 by Steven Schragis, who decided to drop it. Out of the 2,000 books published by the company, it was the only one that Schragis decided to stop publishing. Schragis said that publishers have a responsibility to the public, and that the book had no positive social purpose that could justify keeping it in print.

Is a Revolutionist a Terrorist?

Posted on by under Philosophy, Politics

If so, considering the original spirit of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is an American revolution even possible?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

– Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

– Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

Revolution

noun

  1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
  2. Sociology– a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
  3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
  4. a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.
  5. a single turn of this kind.

Revolutionist

noun

  1. a person who advocates or takes part in a revolution.

adjective

  1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a revolution; revolutionary: revolutionist ideals.

Terrorism

noun

  1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
  2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
  3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Terrorist

noun

  1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
  2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
  3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
  4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

adjective

  1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

Of course, a physically aggressive revolutionist would be, ipso facto, an enemy of the state. Were not the participants in the American Revolutionary War considered enemies of the state by King George? Is the only difference between a terrorist and a revolutionist that the former will attack civilians, while the latter limits its warfare to an established army?

Is a revolution even possible in the first world civilization of the 21st century?