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."
'Turns out one survived -- and is now available on Amazon'
Or at least, that's what they want you to think...
This isn't the manual you're looking for.
</handwave>
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!!!
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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)
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
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
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.