Slashdot Mirror


CIA Manual Thought Lost In 1973 Available On Amazon

An anonymous reader writes "At the height of the Cold War, the Central Intelligence Agency paid renowned magician John Mulholland $3,000 to write a manual on misdirection, concealment, and stagecraft. All known copies of the document were believed to be destroyed in 1973. Turns out one survived — and is now available on Amazon."

190 comments

  1. wow by runyonave · · Score: 0, Troll

    I know that they are deceptive, backstabbing and two-faced, but now I can found out how. Criminals In Action.

    1. Re:wow by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      It's a good thing that only the United States of America has an intelligence service. It's even better that they are the only ones who use deception in the course of their activities. Hey, what's that I hear about deception being an essential part of ethical journalism? Everyone, look, a balloon up in the sky!

      PS is a street magician an actual CIA employee with a security clearance?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:wow by Jurily · · Score: 4, Funny

      This isn't the manual you're looking for.

      </handwave>

    3. Re:wow by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read a book called: The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. It is about this exact topic. It is in the public domain and you can find linked copies from that page. The point of this is that believe it or not, every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book. It details how to establish, consolidate, defend, and extend power. The tools it employs include primarily manipulation in various forms. As they are tools they can be used for both Good and Evil purposes. It is up to you to add them to your own repertoire so you can then use them to fight for what you think is right. If you don't you will be out maneuvered by those who have.

      --
      Shh.
    4. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read a book called: The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. It is about this exact topic. It is in the public domain and you can find linked copies from that page. The point of this is that believe it or not, every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book.

      Hrm, so have I (it's short, and was required reading in my AP European History class), and so does anyone who reads a copy by following your link.

      Point?

    5. Re:wow by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And every nation has one. Some are like the CIA suppose to spy on other nations. For the smaller nations, they spy on their own citizens.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:wow by headkase · · Score: 1

      Point?

      If you want to effectively fight fire employ fire. The world is full of complex issues and the better the guides you comprehend to navigate through those issues the more effective you will be. Whatever your purpose, it's raising the bar. That's progress.

      --
      Shh.
    7. Re:wow by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you ever read the prince? It's the K+R C Programming Language for politics. The book in TFA is about being a spy. I wouldn't say the topics are unrelated but one is a practical handbook and the other is on concepts.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    8. Re:wow by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is in the public domain and you can find linked copies from that page. The point of this is that believe it or not, every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book.

      "Machiavelli stands strongly against the use of mercenaries. He believes them useless to a ruler because they are undisciplined, cowardly, and without any loyalty, being motivated only by money."

      Even if every single US president read the book, it appears some didn't do so thoroughly enough.

    9. Re:wow by krou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "As they are tools they can be used for both Good and Evil purposes."

      I know what you mean, but that's the wrong terminology to be using when discussing Machiavelli and the school of realism (which is essentially what you're describing). It's nothing to do with "good" and "evil". It's only about power, and continuing the existence of the state by whatever means necessary. This tradition goes all the way back to Thucydides, who basically recorded that the “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept [and] by conquering you we shall increase not only the size but the security of our empire – it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can". Rousseau, Niebuhr, Edward Bernays, and various others all expound the same principles.

      The only usage of the term "good" that you can probably use in this scenario is that the actions taken continue the existence of the state. Machiavelli even notes that "it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity – it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.” "Good" and "evil" simply do not apply as most people would understand them; that's a moral code used for propaganda i.e. whatever we do is "good", while whatever they do is "evil". Lying, deception, torture, wars of aggression, ignoring human rights issues, etc. are not things that most people would endorse as being "good" in any shape or form, but in the realm of realism they are all legitimate means towards the one goal i.e. continuing the existence of the state.

      This is one of the prime reasons that there exists a core contradiction in states: internally, its citizens are meant to uphold a strict moral code. Externally, as a collective, they engage in activities that very rarely, if ever, coincide with this moral code.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    10. Re:wow by Anonymusing · · Score: 3, Interesting

      every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book.

      I bet half the college students in the U.S. have read it, too. What's your point?

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    11. Re:wow by Narpak · · Score: 1

      The point of this is that believe it or not, every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book.

      Without mentioning names I will say that I refuse to believe that "every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book". Some of their advisor(s) maybe.

      Frankly I also find it hard to believe that the Prince and the CIA manual are covering the exact same concepts in the exact same way. At best I would perhaps say that someone interested in this sort of literature could, or would, read both, as well as the Art of War.

      At the height of the Cold War, the Central Intelligence Agency paid $3,000 to renowned magician John Mulholland to write a manual on misdirection, concealment, and stagecraft.

      I have yet to read The Prince's chapter on sleight of hand.

    12. Re:wow by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that Machiavelli's Discourses on Levi's History of Ancient Rome are a far better account of how to run a republic. All of Obama's actions so far indicate that he's taking his advice from the Discourses, not the Prince.

    13. Re:wow by Narpak · · Score: 1

      If you want to effectively fight fire employ fire.

      Depends entirely on the fire, counter-fire does have it uses; but for most fires I would recommend water or perhaps anti-fire foam.

    14. Re:wow by khallow · · Score: 1

      So what? "The Prince" is overrated as a manual for ruling people. It's real charm is simply that it doesn't cater to the more common hypocrisies. But the advice just isn't that useful IMHO. My view is that the book was intended as a rationalization of contemporary power gathering and leadership approaches than a "how to" book. "The Art of War" would be more effective a tool since among things, that book gives actual examples of how to lead and it presents a number of useful insights into conflict and strategy.

    15. Re:wow by Tellarin · · Score: 1

      Hey, let's stop making fun of Bush Jr. :-P

    16. Re:wow by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      problem is: this fire (the cia) is a little too big to kill off, or "extinguish". so instead, you make sure it can't do any more harm by letting others know what the cia knows. that's like counter-fire, i guess.

    17. Re:wow by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The chapters on mercenaries refer to Italian conditierri and are regarded as obsolete, of historical interest only. You might consider that the disuse of mercenaries led to the draft, a great evil. The other chapters on human nature are as valid as they've ever been.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    18. Re:wow by headkase · · Score: 1

      The root problem is that situations have a flow to them so you must continually adapt. Everything is out of date the instant it is uttered. Therefore, you need strategy, wisdom, values, and motivation. Then you play the cards you are dealt.

      --
      Shh.
    19. Re:wow by NightlordTW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I rather believe current presidents became what they are because they have the skills as Machiavelli explained. Only geeks like us would read a book like that.

    20. Re:wow by eulernet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read "The Prince", but it's not very useful for manipulation. It's more focused on diplomacy.

      IMHO, the best one is "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie.

      Much more practical than "The Prince", and it works !

    21. Re:wow by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sun Tzu's Art of War talks about spies and double spies. This is all older than dirt.

    22. Re:wow by headkase · · Score: 1

      You make some excellent points. To clarify my personal understanding of Machiavelli is that it is all about methods. He espoused them to be used in the physical world. I like to twist words. I manipulate purposefully discussion to my own ends. Sometimes, morally, I do it for noble ends and sometimes petty ones. Machiavelli's world is ages removed from ours but I fully believe that as its own work it is still relevant today as something to prod yourself into growing as a person. What you do with that depends on your morals.

      --
      Shh.
    23. Re:wow by headkase · · Score: 1

      Everyone comprehends it to their personal degree.

      --
      Shh.
    24. Re:wow by headkase · · Score: 1

      Subterfuge. Men ought to be either well treated or crushed. The CIA is in the crushing business.

      --
      Shh.
    25. Re:wow by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      There's a great book called the 48 laws of power which uses exampled from all of the above and more to illustrate various concepts related to getting, keeping and using power and position of influence.

      Just FYI to anyone interested in such things.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    26. Re:wow by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It is not of some limited historical interest. Foreign mercenaries have been considered an issue not just in Renaissance Italy, but are considered a leading cause of the downfall of Carthage, and the Roman Empire. If you want more recent examples, you can find some here. PMCs are just the latest facade of the same thing.

    27. Re:wow by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I don't think that any leader really needs to read a book to learn to "establish, consolidate, defend, and extend power". The fact that they attain leadership means that they've been selected for having those abilities.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    28. Re:wow by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Almost sounds like the guy read Sun Tzu art of war and translated it for himself in italian or latin and then ended up having his own book.

    29. Re:wow by mrogers · · Score: 1

      The point of this is that believe it or not, every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book.

      Perhaps not every single one. About ten years ago I borrowed The Prince from a girlfriend who was studying politics; half the book is devoted to warnings against relying on mercenaries in foreign wars, and I remember asking myself, "What contemporary leader would be stupid enough to do that?"

      Now I know.

    30. Re:wow by JustOK · · Score: 1

      As long as I'm dealing the cards...

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    31. Re:wow by JustOK · · Score: 1

      "Machiavelli stands strongly against the use of mercenaries. He believes them useless to a ruler because they are undisciplined, cowardly, and without any loyalty, being motivated only by money."

      That's what he wants you to think. That way, their price when he hires them is lower because of lower demand.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    32. Re:wow by oldhack · · Score: 1

      BAH! Everyone heard/read of it, very few actually reads it.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    33. Re:wow by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Blackwater security are the equivalent of Renaissance mercenaries, and see what their use has resulted in. I think Machiavelli's points are still valid today if you update the setting.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    34. Re:wow by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      FYI "Il Principe" doesn't mean "the Prince", but "the boss", or perhaps more precisely "number one".

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    35. Re:wow by mrogers · · Score: 1
      The question of the reality of good and evil becomes more complicated, though, when a state depends in part on public opinion (at home or abroad) to remain powerful. For example, to secure allies for its foreign wars, the US must be seen to respect human rights and uphold democratic principles (if not democratic principals) - it must be "good" in order to be strong. I suppose that could be seen as a conflict between Machiavellian realism and the Platonic/Straussian realism of the noble lie.

      But perhaps the conflict can be resolved with sufficiently good public relations machinery.

    36. Re:wow by retchdog · · Score: 1

      I have. It's mostly common sense these days. Like heliocentrism, formally-argued ruthlessness has moved from heretical idea, to a mathematically-supported prescription for running the world. The historical details are interesting, and it's never a bad idea to read a classic, but I don't think any reasonably aware person is going to have their mind blown by Macchiavelli.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    37. Re:wow by peragrin · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US doesn't rely on mercenaries to fight the wars. They are used as defense after the "war" was won.

      The US military literally rolled over the Iraqi army twice. 1991's Desert Storm crushed the air and tank defenses of iraq. Something Iran spent 8 years trying to do, the armed forces of the USA did in weeks. So if oyu want something crushed, destroyed or captured the USA army is great. If you want a police force the USA is like using a nuclear warhead to take demo a single building. There are hundreds of examples in both wars plus Afghanistan of 12-20 us soldiers fending off 100+ attackers with minimal losses of their own.

      In reality what the USA needs to develop is a heavily armed (preferably international) police force. People who are better at keeping the peace, while still strong enough to defend againist such attackers. Leave the military to attack installations, and large groups and the police force to defend the people.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    38. Re:wow by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      In reality what the USA needs to develop is a heavily armed (preferably international) police force.

      Hmmm. A US International police force? To enforce US law against the world? I could say "good luck with that", but it wouldn't be good luck for anyone. Sovereign states are just that, and it is sheer arrogance to assume that the US has any form of moral or other high ground from which any kind of aggressive action might be justified.

    39. Re:wow by spun · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How exactly is formally argued ruthlessness a mathematically supported prescription for running the world?

      You do know The Prince was meant as satire, right?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    40. Re:wow by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can see you've never read The Prince, you just heard the keyword "mercenary" and clicked into slashbot mode. Sigh. It's not me that says this about the condottieri, it's pretty much every book reviewer everywhere from the 16th century on. Please, for the love of all that is holy, read the God-damned book and get an education. Thanks.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    41. Re:wow by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Informative
      What would those points be, exactly? You've never read the book, you just saw the word "mercenary" and you're trying to insist something that isn't true. Blackwater are the equivalent of Renaissance mercenaries? That is simply uneducated, period. Do they rampage across the United States looting cities and holding wealthy citizens for ransom? Does the mayor of Detroit hire Executive Outcomes to invade Michigan, who then hires Blackwater in defense? Does the CEO of DynCorp hide out in South Jersey with his army, demanding to be hired by Bloomberg otherwise he'll invade the city? Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. But typical of the contemporary style of argument that relies on assertion and "everyone knows that's true" as its only means.

      You don't even know (of course, never having read the book) that Machiavelli, in his book The Prince which we are talking about now, STRONGLY RECOMMENDS AGAINST HIRING MERCENARIES. Machiavelli hated mercenaries, considered them a scourge, and advocated armies of citizens instead. Does "the draft" ring a bell?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    42. Re:wow by modecx · · Score: 1

      Not sure about that. Most of the available evidence suggests that the last president of the US couldn't read at all.

      Sure. That's exactly what he ("they") wanted you and Joe Blow to believe, and he met that goal with resounding success. In public and especially on television he was a dufus, but many journalists remarked they were surprised that his apparent witlessness evaporated when in private. I for one believe he was a much better actor than Regan could have ever hoped to be. Sure, he was no engineer, and didn't translate Latin texts, and didn't do us a world of good...

      Speaking of which, I think it's positively a crime that most presidents have been lawyers in their pre-presidential lives. Other professions are sorely unrepresented. As if a lawyer ever did anything constructive.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    43. Re:wow by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I think it's a bit simplistic to say that good and evil don't come into it. Clearly Machiavelli thinks of stability as "good", in fact a higher good than conventional rules of morality. If the stability of the state requires that some individual be wronged, then that is preferable to anarchy where all suffer.

      I don't think Old Nick is as amoral as he is considered to be by many. He simply does not proceed from the axiom that doing the most right overall comes from doing the most right for each individual the state's actions affect.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    44. Re:wow by fosterNutrition · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do know The Prince was meant as satire, right?

      That's very much a minority view, and certainly not as obvious as your sarcastic tone implies. Most people do not subscribe to that view at all, and reading the book shows exactly why: it doesn't come across as a satire at all. The satirical interpretation is based largely on extrapolating from biographical details and making a lot of tenuous assumptions.

    45. Re:wow by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Do they rampage across the United States looting cities and holding wealthy citizens for ransom?

      No. And do you know why they don't? Because the actual, non-mercenary army is going to kick their ass if they do (that is, if the police proves ineffective). And if you look at the price tag of their services, they don't need to resort to these measures just yet.

      Does "the draft" ring a bell?

      Does "volunteer army" ring a bell? Anyway, you find the draft evil and cruel, but Machiavelli argues that cruelty is necessary, especially when it comes to troops. "The Prince" isn't about being Mr. Nice Head Honcho, it's about getting power and keeping it. And having overpaid mercenaries in your service that don't fear or revere you doesn't help with that.

    46. Re:wow by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I cannot imagine to which presidents you are referring. Maybe Jimmy Carter didn't read it or Ronald Reagan. Maybe John Kennedy or Dwight Eisenhower did not. Maybe Bill Clinton or Barack Obama did not. Maybe George W. Bush did not (although, he is more likely to have read it because he reads so much): http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17bushbooks.htm

      and: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/29/AR2008122901896.html

      and: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html

      Anyway, I've read portions of The Prince and was not impressed.

    47. Re:wow by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you want to effectively fight fire employ fire... That's progress.

      I'd recommend instead Aqueous Fire-Fighting Foam, Halon, water mists, Mars water bombers, and electronic-safe extinguishers, depending on the type, severity, and location of the fire.

      Now THAT'S progress.

      In terms of your analogy, which is what you really meant -- the people using fire can recognize fire and will take counter-measures. Come at them sideways, get them to fall into their own traps, and they won't see it coming.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    48. Re:wow by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Others think it was his attempt to get into Medici service.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    49. Re:wow by krou · · Score: 1

      Which is actually why I said, "The only usage of the term 'good' that you can probably use in this scenario is that the actions taken continue the existence of the state."

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    50. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept"

      "The only usage of the term "good" that you can probably use in this scenario is that the actions taken continue the existence of the state."

      That's the usage for the strong, but the concept of good and evil that the weak have is different than that of the strong: it involves morality.

      "Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".
      - Leo Strauss

      If professional criminals would have a philosophy, that would be it.

    51. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article it gives no indication that he was ever a full-time employee, he was probably employed on a contract or consulting basis. Since the manual itself was classified the author was doubtless investigated and granted a security clearance in order to work on the project. It's pretty common for agencies to hire subject matter experts on a consulting basis for special projects, even for classified projects. And it seems perfectly reasonably for the CIA to want their agents to have some knowledge on these topics.

    52. Re:wow by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >I>The point of this is that believe it or not, every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book.

      I choose not. As does any rational person. Go take your pills.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    53. Re:wow by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 1

      "As they are tools they can be used for both Good and Evil purposes."

      I know what you mean, but that's the wrong terminology to be using when discussing Machiavelli and the school of realism (which is essentially what you're describing). It's nothing to do with "good" and "evil". It's only about power, and continuing the existence of the state by whatever means necessary.

      Well you've convinced me...

      From now on I shall stop thinking about governments in terms of "good" vs"evil", instead I will think of government in terms of "doesn't exist" vs "exists".
      Where "doesn't exist" represents government that serves for the betterment of all humanity, and "exists" represents greedy, lying, murdering bastards. :-P

      It makes sense for the persons in power to look at things from the moral neutral; the perspective of 'What must I do to keep this power'.
      As subjects of power, "good" vs "evil" are exactly the scales we should measure on. We MUST avoid moral neutrality, otherwise we become the tools of the government rather than government being a tool of the people.

      The usage of the phrases good and evil have no value when coming from the top down, they should be very meaningful coming from the bottom up.

    54. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're gonna sell at least one ticket to that movie, I can personally promise you that.

    55. Re:wow by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU
      Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney vs Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on DynCorp's "trade".
      Blackwater you should have read about.
      ..Do they rampage across the United States.. they did after Katrina :)
      Just waiting for the next one :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    56. Re:wow by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 1

      Remember that Machiavelli recommended not hiring mercenaries because their lack of loyalty and their tendency to turn against you when you need them most.

      While it's true that they won't be rampaging and plundering US cities (because of the rather large conventional army, as stated by another poster), it wouldn't be surprising if they did that in some other places like a few african countries or war-torn Iraq. Prolonging a conflict wouldn't be a surprise, too, if it were economically beneficial to them.

      I remember reading somewhere that one of the major complaints about blackwater in Iraq was that they would make a mess and then leave things to the US armed forces for them to fix.

      In certain ways, Blackwater is equivalent to rennaissance mercenaries, and the sections about mercenaries are still valid today.

    57. Re:wow by krou · · Score: 1

      We MUST avoid moral neutrality, otherwise we become the tools of the government rather than government being a tool of the people. The usage of the phrases good and evil have no value when coming from the top down, they should be very meaningful coming from the bottom up.

      This is only meaningful when applied by people against their own government first and foremost. For me, the actual risk is not from avoiding moral neutrality, but in avoiding applying the same moral standards to ourselves as we do to others.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    58. Re:wow by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'd be very surprised if any serious politician didn't have a passing acquaintance with The Prince - the same way I expect any Philosophy major to have read some Ayn Rand. You might not agree with the content, but you should know what is in it so you won't be laughed at.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    59. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you obviously didn't understand the prince.

    60. Re:wow by Abreu · · Score: 1

      I read the Goddamned book a few years ago, and I am fully aware that Machiavelli was talking about the mercenaries of his time...

      STILL, since Machiavelli's advice on mercenaries and allied troops boils down to "do everything possible to avoid using them, since they don't have any true allegiance to you or your goals", I find it still valid now, considering the political costs of using Private Military Companies like Blackwater or DynCorp.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    61. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fluent in 16C Italian? Read a lot of Italian satire from that era?

      Ever think that maybe the modern translation doesn't quite do the original tone of the piece justice?

    62. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are likely to be similarities... after all, I'm sure John Mulholland read The Prince and The Art of War prior to writing this book -- they would be an excellent base for him to learn how to apply his own unique skills in the political arena.

    63. Re:wow by Miseph · · Score: 1

      To be fair, politics (at least in modern America) is primarily concerned with creating and manipulating law. It is objectively more useful to have a president with a keen understanding of arbitration than one with a keen understanding of string theory (assuming you think that string theory isn't completely bogus).

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    64. Re:wow by syousef · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'd be very surprised if any serious politician didn't have a passing acquaintance with The Prince - the same way I expect any Philosophy major to have read some Ayn Rand. You might not agree with the content, but you should know what is in it so you won't be laughed at.

      One name: Sarah Palin.

      If she can't see it from her house she shouldn't comment on it.

      And yeah you can call her "not a serious politician" till you go blue, but she was a contender in a presidential election.

      Here in Australia we've had similar politicians. Competence is not a requirement on the paperwork.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    65. Re:wow by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You know, the people running the show right now have also read The Prince and they are not repeat not relying on mercenaries. They are using the mercenaries for specific purposes to which they are ideally suited. If you think that the excesses of mercenaries have not been accounted for and specifically invited, you're not thinking hard enough.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re:wow by mrogers · · Score: 1

      The US doesn't rely on mercenaries to fight the wars. They are used as defense after the "war" was won.

      You put the scare quotes round the wrong three-letter word - declaring Mission Accomplished allowed the profiteers to move in, but the war was far from "won" at that point.

      As for using mercenaries as defense - Fallujah could be called defense only in the sense used in the name of the eponymous Department. It certainly wasn't a defensive action.

      You're quite right to say that the US military is better at crushing things than policing them - and the same seems to be true of its contractors. I guess the question facing the US government is which of those actions constitutes victory in the modern world.

    67. Re:wow by lsatenstein · · Score: 0

      Our Canadian Prime Minister must have one at his bedside.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    68. Re:wow by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Hey, let's stop making fun of Bush Jr. :-P

      Errr, why?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    69. Re:wow by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      Bah. I'll bite.

      I'm glad to know that we have one such as yourself that IS fluent in 16th century Italian. You can spread your wisdom on how to interpret a 450 year old document that was been alternatively been alternately described as a treatise on ruling, a satire, or the most extensive job application ever written. Clearly you know more about this document than the majority of Renaissance scholars who did not actually believe this to be a scholar.

      Thanks for being here, friend, I have some essays on the Florentine Republic that that I may need help on in the future.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    70. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read a book called: The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. It is about this exact topic. It is in the public domain and you can find linked copies from that page. The point of this is that believe it or not, every single president in the US or leader elsewhere has read that book. e.

      Are you suggesting that Bush can read?

  2. Trickery and misdirection by RDW · · Score: 5, Funny

    'Turns out one survived -- and is now available on Amazon'

    Or at least, that's what they want you to think...

    1. Re:Trickery and misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c'mon mods. THAT's FUNNY!

    2. Re:Trickery and misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...although just a little obvious.

    3. Re:Trickery and misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      dundunduuuuuuuuuuuuuuun...

    4. Re:Trickery and misdirection by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      "22 new from $14.41 / 4 used from $15.39"

      Ok..if only 1 survived, how come there are 4 used copies available on Amazon?

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    5. Re:Trickery and misdirection by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      "22 new from $14.41 / 4 used from $15.39"

      Wait.. the used copies are more expensive than the new ones? WOW these people really aren't playing around with the mind fscking...

  3. PDF Torrent? by nurb432 · · Score: 0

    For the rest of us, since only one lucky person will get the dead tree prize.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:PDF Torrent? by GrubLord · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, no, it seems they've actually started printing the book.

      Amazon's selling the newly published copies, not auctioning the original.

    2. Re:PDF Torrent? by Tink2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Er... parent not insightful, unless one believes the summary implicitly. At the cost of $10.99 (plus shipping), I'm pretty sure they've mass produced this sucker, or else the info is absolutely worthless (*stage whisper* DO NOT SEEK THE TREASURE!).

      One of the questions raised on the Amazon page is: shouldn't this material be public domain? It is owned by the US Government and any copyright would seem to have expired at this point, and moreover it seems like we should be able to get a copy for free under the FOIA.

    3. Re:PDF Torrent? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shouldn't one be able to believe the story summary? If not, why even bother having them?

      And yes, unless its classified, it is in the American pubic domain on day one since it was paid for by US citizens. However that doesn't mean you cant sell a copy for the cost of 'printing', sort of like the GPL. Even the government often charges a 'reproduction fee' when you order documents directly.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:PDF Torrent? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

      > One of the questions raised on the Amazon page is: shouldn't this material
      > be public domain? It is owned by the US Government...

      If the author wrote thing as a US Government employee then the goverment is the author and is not permitted to enforce its copyright. If he was acting as a contractor he is the author in which case he may still own the copyright.

      > ...and any copyright would seem to have expired at this point...

      Not yet.

      > ...it seems like we should be able to get a copy for free under the FOIA.

      The FOIA does not work the way you think it does.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:PDF Torrent? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

      > And yes, unless its classified, it is in the American pubic domain on day
      > one since it was paid for by US citizens.

      Not true. The government cannot enforce its copyright on "works for hire" where the government is the employer but it can enforce copyrights it acquires. Contractors also often retain copyright is works produced while performing a contract (the government usually acquires a nonexclusive license). The mere fact that a work was paid for by tax money does not put it in the public domain.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:PDF Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Shouldn't one be able to believe the story summary? If not, why even bother having them?

      Oblig I'm afraid: You must be new here.

    7. Re:PDF Torrent? by hallux.sinister · · Score: 1

      The cake is a lie! What better way to boost sales than by suggesting you shouldn't or oughtn't or flat-out can't have/read this book?

    8. Re:PDF Torrent? by Tink2000 · · Score: 0

      How can you get informative without giving any information whatsoever?
      How can you infer how much I do or don't know about the FOIA? I actually used to have to respond to them on a daily basis. I think I know the procedure to get information from the government, thank you very much. I am aware that an agency is allowed to asses administration fees to process a FOIA but this is usually a rather nominal fee. I could argue that the material is "free" and there is a processing fee, does that sit better with you? And wow, what a brilliantly detailed correction you lay out! "Nuh-uh!"

      Since it's been deemed declassified (provided this isn't a marketing ploy) it would seem that the government owns the work. Thus by what you say, that eliminates a contractor owning the work (again, presuming the word declassified isn't a marketing ploy).

      How about in your stinging rebuttal, you go into details about how one would get information like this, provided it was owned by the government, from the government and what -- if any -- costs would be associated with such a procurement?

    9. Re:PDF Torrent? by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension fail.
      I said "believe the story summary implicitly", meaning that "[t]urns out one survived" would be exactly that -- one single solitary copy.

      It's not quite clear as to who owns the work, so the word "declassified" might be a marketing ploy. In fact, I'm fairly certain that this particular work is not owned by the government, but instead has incorporated from a work owned by the government within, and added some stuff to make it original -- much like the GPL.

      Getting the material itself may be free, but you may have to to pay an administrative fee, sure ok I'll split hairs too. The thing is, books are cheap to print. The list price on this is $25. If this is owned by the government, then that's a pretty darn good profit to turn for a printing fee.

    10. Re:PDF Torrent? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      any copyright would seem to have expired at this point,

      There's shit from the 30s still under copyright. No way in hell is a book from the 70s going to be out of copyright yet...as retarded as that is...

    11. Re:PDF Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where you get your information but generally contract work is also fully owned by the government, including any copyrights (I say this as a government contractor). It's an exception when this is not the case.

      And yeah, this doesn't really fall under a FOIA request. A lot of stuff is just public domain and easily available to any citizen wanting it.

    12. Re:PDF Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the real trick was it only contains material available in any decent hand book of Magicans stagecraft and the The author made a huge CIA pork barrel of tax payers money vanish.

    13. Re:PDF Torrent? by Rary · · Score: 1

      One of the questions raised on the Amazon page is: shouldn't this material be public domain?

      This is not the original manual. This is a book published by the people who found the manual. It includes the contents of the original manual, plus some additional commentary. It is, therefore, a new original work containing some possibly public domain material.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    14. Re:PDF Torrent? by WNight · · Score: 1

      The mere fact that a work was paid for by tax money does not put it in the public domain.

      Until we all decide it does. Treat it like it is and it will be.

      What else could the phrase mean? If the public wills it...

  4. Waves hand... by aquabat · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is not the book you are looking for.....move along.....

    --
    A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    1. Re:Waves hand... by daid303 · · Score: 1

      That won't work on Amazon, only money.

    2. Re:Waves hand... by martin-boundary · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Oooh! Wooks! Meesa can also weade wooks too! Can meesa twy? Pweeze?

    3. Re:Waves hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not the book you are looking for.....move along.....

      Tricks are what whores do for money, i do illusions

    4. Re:Waves hand... by camperslo · · Score: 0, Redundant

      This is not the book you are looking for.....move along.....

      The FOX employee training manual??

    5. Re:Waves hand... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I stopped reading comic books when I was 10 years old.

          "See Bobby"
          "See Bobby on TV"
          "See Bobby babble nonsense" :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    6. Re:Waves hand... by EQ · · Score: 1

      More like the NYT handbook anymore.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
  5. Re:Trickery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah but she told me she likes it when I do that.

  6. Oh, Look, the Kindle Version is Available! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder how long until it gets globally deleted via the wireless updates.

  7. PDF!! by wirah · · Score: 0

    Free download of the Ebook version or it never happened...

  8. Some readers don't much of it. by NoYob · · Score: 1

    The manual is of some historic value as a relic of the 1950s, when we were actually trying to murder Castro with exploding cigars, but John Mulholland's actual manuals seem of little practical use, even then. Oh, I suppose there's some value in learning how to drop Roofies in your date's drink while lighting her cigarette, but the techniques developed by Mulholland wouldn't have passed muster at "The Man from Uncle." It was more "Get Smart" stuff.

    Review here...

    So, it's not all that.

    There's a Kindel version so, I guess there will be a torrent?

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    1. Re:Some readers don't much of it. by MadKeithV · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some readers don't much of it?
      I didn't much of it.
      I almost a full of it though.

    2. Re:Some readers don't much of it. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 1 out of 4 reviewers has given it 2 stars. Two others gave it 4 stars and the last gave it 5 stars. Seems like the consensus is that's it's a cool read.

    3. Re:Some readers don't much of it. by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 1 out of 4 reviewers has given it 2 stars. Two others gave it 4 stars and the last gave it 5 stars. Seems like the consensus is that's it's a cool read.

      So... it was reviewed by Generals?

  9. The original article? by Sara+Chan · · Score: 5, Informative

    So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe.

    Genius idea: have the Slashdot summary link to the actual story. YES!!!

    1. Re:The original article? by arachnoprobe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Genius idea: have the Slashdot summary link to the actual story. YES!!!

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:The original article? by lxs · · Score: 1

      Meh that's so 1994. This is the new /b/ inspired internet where links are linking links that link links. There isn't even a story or a book. It's all links.

    3. Re:The original article? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Yo dawg, I heard you like links, so I put some links in your links so you can link your links.

      Anyhow, this manual's existence just goes to show that information really does want to be free. Or at least wants to go from classified document to $10.99 a copy.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:The original article? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe

      Slashdot: now a free treasure hunt with every story !

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    5. Re:The original article? by microcars · · Score: 1

      it is called Lubrication. Internet does not work without it.

      --
      I like microcars
    6. Re:The original article? by jcombel · · Score: 0

      So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe. Genius idea: have the Slashdot summary link to the actual story. YES!!!

      i am upvoting you with my mind

    7. Re:The original article? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe.

      "Misdirection", check; give it a few minutes for "concealment" to kick in...

    8. Re:The original article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:The original article? by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe.

      I think there's less misdirection than usual. Normally /. would link to some dude's blog which is calling another blog writer an idiot and happens to quote one line from the Huffington Post article. Once you eventually find the article it will be split over ten pages with one paragraph of text on each, surrounded by annoying flash ads.

    10. Re:The original article? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      It's a secret message. If you take the first initials of the authors of each post between the Slashdot entry and the actual Globe article... No, wait, it's the first letter of each paragraph... No, it's--I'll find it one of these days!

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    11. Re:The original article? by luder · · Score: 1

      No, that's Sara Chan. New Here is this guy.

    12. Re:The original article? by st0nes · · Score: 1

      OK, the Boston Globe has an illustration of the woman sawed in half trick. I have wracked my brains, but cannot come up with any plausible scenario wherein the CIA would need to know how to do that. If anyone has a more productive imagination, or was actually in the CIA, please let us know how this was used.

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
    13. Re:The original article? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      It's links all the way down...
      Hey maybe we can start a new set theory based on links.

    14. Re:The original article? by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      You have to click through on the image to get the answer to that. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/CIA_illusion/

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
  10. slashvert by cOldhandle · · Score: 0

    The summary is just a very misleading slashvert, it makes it seem like one original copy is for sale. It is just some document that has been declassified and is now being published in a hardcover book...

  11. Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It’s not particularly hard to find. Amongst the things that I found on eDonkey, some old anarchy sites, etc, are tons of CIA and army manuals about questionable topics. The one I found particularly nice was a guide that explained to you how to get a major or other politician off his post, or even killed, trough small nudges here and there in the town. Talk to someone here, do this there, and let the event cascade roll into a avalanche that breaks his neck.
    Then of course torture and interrogation manuals, building bombs and healing yourself in emergency situations or covert operations, etc. etc. etc. Everything from TNT over Napalm, termite, picking locks, spying on people, spy protection, and ten years ago I found a complete technical description of how to build a nuclear bomb. With a text file attached, saying to ask there and there when you’d find yourself in need for the “materials” to build it. ^^
    Luckily I was only angry at my dad, and not at any country, back then. ^^
    Hmm... I wonder if I still have them somewhere... probably locked away in a archive with military-grade encryption that I forgot the password to. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  12. Deception.... by cra · · Score: 1

    So, it looks like it worked, then...

    --
    This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for higher security.
  13. Amazon link by The+New+Andy · · Score: 1
    Amazon link (from the article, which shows that the Huffington Post guys took it from boingboing... so if there is a referrer code in there, then it isn't mine).

    I much prefer a link to the book on amazon than a write up about how it exists there. Given that the book is "In Stock" for $15, I'm guessing this isn't the one remaining copy for sale :)

    1. Re:Amazon link by The+New+Andy · · Score: 1

      ... or I could have deduced that they took it from boingboing by just reading the very next two words after the link, where they credit the story as "via BoingBoing"

  14. Available at Barnes&Noble as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, BN.com has it as well: http://books.barnesandnoble.com/search/results.aspx?WRD=Official+CIA+Manual

  15. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by smitty777 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remind me not to get on your bad side. If I had any mod points, I'd give them to you, my friend. In fact, I'd give you all of them...really.

    --
    "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
    Albert Einstein
  16. This has been out for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The whole manuscript was published in a magicians' monthly magazine called "Genii" several years ago. Granted, it is a fascinating read, but it was not "just discovered".

  17. Imporvised Munitions Black Book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the one you're looking for. Published by Paladin and available as a torrent...

  18. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by zwei2stein · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of those files were work of BBS users and can range anywhere from complete bullshit all the way to actually working stuff.

    I guess you know this, but rest of slashdot could take a peek at those manuals here: http://textfiles.com/

    --
    -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
  19. A few excerpts. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chapter One: Misdirection
    Let me preface this with a few words WHOA LOOK BEHIND YOU MAN! Did you look? I knew it! There you go. Misdirection.

    Chapter 2: Concealment:
    Watch Pulp Fiction. Captain Koons talking to Butch about his grandpa's wristwatch is all you need know.

    Chapter 3: Stagecraft.
    See Chapter One. Do something while they're not looking. If someone looks while you're doing whatever it is you're doing, kill them. Claim they were terrorists.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:A few excerpts. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      WHOA LOOK BEHIND YOU MAN!

      Ok, I looked. And where's the three-headed monkey?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:A few excerpts. by girasquid · · Score: 1

      You TERRORIST.

  20. Mandatory by frozentier · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was under the impression that this book was mandatory reading for all U.S. politicians.

  21. One copy? by Cigarra · · Score: 1

    The book is "in stock" in Amazon, and Invisible Hand showed me links to at least 4 other sites where they're selling it... So WTF?

    --
    I don't have a sig.
    1. Re:One copy? by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      I believe "one copy" is a reference to the original copy, on which the published book is based.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  22. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by delvsional · · Score: 1

    Could I get a zip file of all that? please?

    --
    Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
  23. hehehehe by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every nation has a CIA equivalence. They have to. They have to know what others are doing and if there is a real threat. For example MI6 comes to mind.

    Now, if you are calling them criminal because of Iraq/Afghanistan, then nope. The real problem was not CIA. These were simply foot soldiers doing what they were ordered to by the highest level of the gov.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:hehehehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm wasnt that defense decredited at Numerberg?

    2. Re:hehehehe by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Now, if you are calling them criminal because of Iraq/Afghanistan, then nope. The real problem was not CIA. These were simply foot soldiers doing what they were ordered to by the highest level of the gov.

      To risk a Godwin, "just following orders" hasn't been a valid defense (or, in this case moral rationalization) since Nuremberg. Soldiers are just people, and people are culpable for their actions. If someone works for a company, and that company asks them to do something illegal, whose to blame? Both the company for asking illegal activities from its employees, and the employee for carrying out illegal activities. Why should tacking the world "soldier" onto it make it any different?

      If the people of the CIA broke international law, and acted in a way that is morally reprehensible to us, then guilt flows down the latter. The US Gov't is guilty of making illegal demands, the CIA is guilty of not questioning these demands, and the employees of the CIA who actually carried this out are guilty of doing it (or at least not all turning into merry whistleblowers).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    3. Re:hehehehe by Dravik · · Score: 1

      What international law? Can you point me to the international equivalent of the us code and federal register? If you want to point to the Geneva convention, you might want to pay attention to the clauses that specifically exclude those not wearing uniforms of an organized army. You know, how spies and those not wearing uniforms have been historically subject to summary execution.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    4. Re:hehehehe by Omestes · · Score: 1

      What international law?

      If the people of the CIA broke international law...

      I'm not saying the CIA broke international law, or did not brake it. Nor am I arguing about the text of international law, I'm just saying that the "just following orders" defense is historically flawed. I was also, mostly, arguing in moral terms, deferring blame does not leave you blameless, and not legal terms.

      They may well have not broke the letter of international law (the spirit perhaps).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    5. Re:hehehehe by Dravik · · Score: 1

      I agree that just following orders is not an acceptable defense. I'm questioning what they would need to defend themselves against. What is the spirit of international law? Do you mean the norms of acceptable behavior in the western world? I would like to point out that the majority of all the international institutions are made up of countries that do not accept western norms.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
  24. The Cake.Is.A lie by VShael · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    doncha know...

  25. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Sure. Install eMule, configure it, and enter “cia” or “army” and you got half of it. The other half is found by searching for “bbs anarchy” on Google. Don’t expect me to send it to you directly though, for obvious reasons. :)

    Oh, and of course I forgot, that the “illegal” cookbook (yes, THE cookbook) is also easily available.
    My father, being a bit of a collector, also once acquired the original 70s paper version of that book. Even back then you could go straight to jail for “terrorism” just for owning it. It was an interesting read for someone going to 4rth class. ^^
    I don’t know if he still has it though. Haven’t seen him for 10 years now.
    He also told me, that back then, a “cookbook” often just was a book with a grenade in it. ^^

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  26. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I found tm 31-210 to be most interesting. Forget the Anarchist Cookbook, the USA Government itself provides the best manual to cook your own explosives. Only click the links at Google if you're not paranoid...

  27. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Hmm... Now I really wonder where the “flamebait” part of my comment is supposed to be. :)
    Or is this some special agent? If so: Hello there. I can see you. ;P

    Disclaimer: I am not pro- or contra- anything. I just think that some idiot should stop beating their heads (and especially those of others) in over pointless shit. :) If that means you hate me, then I’m proud of it. ^^

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  28. silent weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the best such document i have seen has been silent weapons for quiet wars. really makes you think about the world in its current state... and the invented "problems" like economy, CO2 etc

  29. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You coward !

  30. Summary is wrong by krou · · Score: 0

    It didn't first surface on Amazon and then become available. If you actually read the article (at the Boston Globe and Wired), it's available for sale on Amazon, but it originally got declassified by the CIA itself.

    --
    'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
  31. A Manual for the Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone needs a training manual to outline those obvious "tricks," it does not say much for his intelligence and inventiveness. Any schoolboy has reinvented those deceptions many times over.

  32. Ironic by hallux.sinister · · Score: 5, Informative
    Every time I see or hear of a reference to "The Prince", or a leader is referred to as Machiavellian, I smile at the irony. Machiavelli was being SARCASTIC when he wrote that. He was kidding! Machiavelli was ahead of his time in holding the ideals of personal freedom and responsibility, equality, and all that jazz which are diametric opposites of the views espoused in "The Prince". He worked hard as a politician to build Florence into a shining beacon of how a society should be run, and a family called the de' Medici came along, seized power, (using techniques from the, at the time, as-yet-unwritten book, "The Prince") and turned the shining beacon into a cesspool of corruption, with rampant nepotism, greed, etc.

    Stripped of his position, and having been barred from holding any political office by the de' Medici, after a lifetime of public service, embittered, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" basically saying: "if you want to grab, hold, and expand your political power," (adding under his breath, "like those de' Medici bastards,") he continued, "this is what you do..." (He could not insult them openly, he had already been imprisoned and tortured by them once, and I guess he wasn't "feeling strong" anymore.)

    It was not meant literally! I guess the De Medici had the last laugh though, whether by their actions or not, Machiavelli's name is associated NOT with his own good and noble life's work, but with the behaviours and beliefs of those he most loathed and despised. For a better idea of what this great Renaissance figure really thought, try instead his "Discorsi sulla prima deca di Tito Livio", or "Discourses on the first ten books of Livy", (Titus Livius, Roman historian)

    ~ Hallux

    1. Re:Ironic by headkase · · Score: 1

      Thank you, project Gutenberg will be my friend and you have provided the link.

      --
      Shh.
    2. Re:Ironic by forand · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with your assertion that Machiavelli was sarcastic. He was bitter and discontent with the destruction of the Florentine Republic but he accurately described the methods used in its destruction. Those methods were and are how governments stay in power. Finally, while he may not like his name associated with this method his description became so ubiquitous that it has and his desires are lost to history.

    3. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valid insights, no doubt, but perhaps "Machiavellian" references started more akin to Orwellian references - something tells me George Orwell was no more an advocate of Big Brother than Machiavelli was of those things you say he opposed. Perhaps the meaning has been distorted from its origin, but that seems to be little different from just about anything else in this age of rampant ignorance...

    4. Re:Ironic by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Every time I see or hear of a reference to "The Prince", or a leader is referred to as Machiavellian, I smile at the irony. Machiavelli was being SARCASTIC when he wrote that. He was kidding!

      As others in this thread have mentioned, this is a minority view amongst the scholarly community. Machiavelli certainly had one hell of a motive to sabotage the Medici government, although The Prince would have had to have been one hell of a subtle piece of sabotage.

      In either event, it is generally accepted that The Prince holds up extremely well to logical scrutiny, and is consistent with the rest of his writings. There are a few troubling items in his chapter on military strategy that would appear to be patently bad advice, although it is debatable whether or not this was intentional.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Ironic by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1

      So was Mendelssohn when he wrote his nuptial march, but it does little to avoid hearing it at most weddings, because many couples are not musicologist and have little choice over the matter. So it goes with our politicians : Machiavelli's original intents weight little in front of a wrong, centuries old, consensus.

  33. Re:Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Christmas gifts,Is he by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

        I've seen a few in the last few days. Since Slashdot doesn't delete any posts (yet), it's a golden place for them to be. Those of us reading at -1 see them, but obviously we won't buy from them. It'll should (I believe) help their pagerank though, which hurts everyone else.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  34. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by jaggeh · · Score: 1

    wikileaks has a lot of it, up to date versions too.

    --
    I would give everything i own for a little bit more.
  35. Direct Links Already by angryphase · · Score: 0, Redundant

    An article on Slashdot linking to The Huffington Post, talking about a Wired story talking about an item for sale on Amazon. No need for the book, misdirection is alive and well.

  36. question by anonymous9991 · · Score: 0

    I am confused as to how google and amazon got rights to all these books. Doesn't this violate copyright laws. If I create a book will google and amazon get it without my knowledge.

    1. Re:question by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      I am confused as to how google and amazon got rights to all these books. Doesn't this violate copyright laws. If I create a book will google and amazon get it without my knowledge.

      All your books are belong to Google!

  37. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by treuf · · Score: 1

    Jesus, you just fired Echelon with all those words !!!
    Hopefully you didn't used Semtex or Javelin ... :D

  38. Not just the NYT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like the MSM handbook anymore.

  39. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is true. The infamous "Anarchist Cookbook", for one, is not Anarchist*, and is a dangerously bad cookbook.

      * (You cannot destroy an abstract social relationship with explosives.)

  40. No. by spun · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The Prince is not a manual for how to run a government. It is meant as satire, a warning perhaps, to the people, about how sociopaths run a government. If you want something closer to a manual, read Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy , a book about how to run a Republic rather than a Tyranny.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  41. Do no Evil loses its meaning? Argghh .... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    ""Good" and "evil" simply do not apply as most people would understand them; that's a moral code used for propaganda i.e. whatever we do is "good", while whatever they do is "evil"

    Great. Now Google has to change their slogan to "Do no Microsofty things"

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  42. It's not "Of the peephole ... for the peephole" by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "Not true. The government cannot enforce its copyright on "works for hire" where the government is the employer but it can enforce the copyrights it acquires."

    ... and since the government is "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" that copyright is held by the US citizens, lest you forget 4th grade civics.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  43. Bush and friends... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    WMD etc...

    I think they had a copy.

  44. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by EdIII · · Score: 1

    termite

    I knew those little buggers were organized, but not that they were for hire.

    Hmmm.

    The More You Know :)

  45. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you mean the CIA doesn't have manuals with those kinds of instructions, doesn't do those kinds of things, or does never disclose/declassify any of it?

  46. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  47. font by andreyvul · · Score: 1

    the font on the picture reminds me of the TTC font, for some reason.

    --
    proud caffeine whore
  48. Mentioning the obvious... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Contrary to what the summary implies, it's a reprint based on a surviving copy. The actual original from the seventies is going to fetch more than $20, and will probably not be available at Amazon.

  49. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... death by termite sounds... painful.

  50. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by smitty777 · · Score: 1

    You coward !

    Ha ha!! That's pretty funny coming from a guy named "Anonymous Coward".

    --
    "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
    Albert Einstein
  51. Previously Published in Genii Magazine by NotPeteMcCabe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some if not most of Mulholland's manual was published in Genii Magazine (a magic magazine) within the last couple of years. if you want you can find a back issue; start at geniimagazine.com.

  52. Does it... by Puppet+Master · · Score: 1
    explain how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear???

    If not, then I don't want it.

    --
    The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
  53. Re:Oh come on, everybody has that on his hard disk by FragHARD · · Score: 1

    Yep. I seen quite a few 'Manuals' on the internet, never hurts to have a copy here & there. ;)

    --
    FragHARD or don't frag at all
  54. H. Post blocked at work, not so Boston Globe by techvet · · Score: 1

    One vote for this because the Puffington Host is blocked at work but not the Boston Globe.

  55. WWII "Magic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both the British and Americans employed magicians during WWII to the same ends.

    The British had Jasper Maskelyne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Maskelyne#Wartime_trickery)

    and the U.S. had a team of magicians, artists and designers whose job it was to simulate troops, tanks, and arty where there was none. One of this team was designer Bill Blass.

    1. Re:WWII "Magic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More info here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_Army