Talk:The Anarchist Cookbook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some tasks you can do:

[edit] Recipes for Disaster and CrimethInc

A text published on CrimethInc. criticized the cookbook because 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 the recipes in it are notoriously unreliable."

I reverted this sentence back to my original version because as far as I know, the criticism was not from a text on the crimethinc website (which I assume to be the meaning of "published on CrimethInc). I found the criticism on the wikipedia page about Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook and it is probably contained within the book (I have not yet had the pleasure to see the book myself). Anyways, there is no crimethinc website, just a lot of sites by various groups calling themselves crimethinc. There is no official site though. Unless someone can actually provide a URL to a crimethinc site with the criticism, I think it should be kept as it is now.

I have the book now (yay) and it does not contain that quote. I still don't know where it is originally from though, so I'm leaving it as it is.

[edit] Copyright violation of Amazon.com review by Powell.

What happened to the long quote by the author? I think we should maybe put that back in. Any one agree?

On another subject: what's the source of Powell's statement, and can we use it? Could be a copyvio. Tualha 02:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe the source of Powell's statement is a review on Amazon.com. There has also been a note from his local Sherrif somewhere.

[edit] Title.

Two comments: It should be Cookbook; and it was certainly not written by an 80 year-old actor (see link to William Powell). I don't want to change anything myself because I have to read the whole article first. --KF 08:23, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The title is clearly The Anarchist Cookbook - see Barnes & Noble for a cover shot, for example. I'll move it in a few days unless there are objections. Tualha 02:07, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect recipes.

I have additional information about which recipes are correct or incorrect, but I do not know if I should add it to this page. Please advise.--Esoterica 19:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Add it and see what happens, at least then the information has been given a fair chance. Lord Metroid 17:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbooks by anarchists.

Quote: "Real food cookbooks by anarchists are being published by groups including Infoshop.org (http://www.infoshop.org). Many of these cookbooks are vegan" What the hell does this have to do with anything? Hey, can I include my mom's website too, because she happens to write cookbooks! BUY BUY BUY! --84.176.104.18 20:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's important because lots of people ignorantly connect the anarchist cookbook with anarchism, which most anarchists dislike. As such we have appropriated the name as a joke. Other pages often refer to other uses of a term or an instance of that term being spun off in other ways into a culture, and that is a great example of a spin-off of the anarchist cookbook.

It doesn't provide any useful information to the user. It seems more like some sort of advertisement to me, I'm going to remove it unless an actual GOOD reason for having it there is posted here. ♠ SG →Talk 22:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am about to put in a mention of the vegan cookbooks again, but I will leave out the part about Infoshop.org being involved. Therefore it is not advertisement at all.

[edit] The Terrorists Handbook

Is this in anyway similiar to The Terrorists Handbook, which can be found floating around on the Internet?

The Terrorist Handbook is basically a stripped down version of the online version of the anarchist cookbook. It's stripped of its drugs and hacking related parts, leaving only the explosives and bombs. Stefan Jansen 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And also, almost all of the info on that book is theoretiocally correct, unlike the Jolly rogers cookbook and this anarchists cookbook, but i take your point at there being no drugs or hacking sections, plus the writer can't spell to save his life.

[edit] NPOV

Most real anarchists condemn the Anarchist Cookbook, I get what this sentance is trying to say and suspect that it is probally true that a lot of people in the anarchist movement reject the book but talk of 'real anarchists' is POV.--JK the unwise 11:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence, and as far as I know the author never claimed to be an anarchist or be strongly influenced by anarchist ideologies. You can edit out the word 'real' if you want.

a real anarchist is someone who wants to creat an egalitarian and fair world, not someone who wants "chaos".

[edit] New Edits about the Movie by 24.61.98.230

Is Johnny Red actually said to be a member of NAMBLA? He does write in his journal that he thinks our demonizing of romantic relationships between adults and children is "bourgeois" and will change after the revolution, but I don't remeber any mentions of NAMBLA (and I watched it twice in two days just because I was so blown away by how strange the movie was). And yeah, it wasn't that great, and may have been right-wing propaganda. I know a lot of anarchists who have seen it think so. It looked like it would be good from the synopsis, but it was a let down. C'mon, teaming up with neo-nazis?! It did have it's moments (like subverting the historical reenactment, "camping" in the store, and squating in the library) though. The Ungovernable Force 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure that the DVD cover included is actually from a different film altogether. There was, IIRC, an older film called 'The Anarchist Cookbook' featuring German punks who attempt to blow up a building and fail, only to discover that the device is still there years later. Re-edit: Nevermind, I am a complete fool, that is all Madashell 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That movie is called In Case of Fire. I actually want to see it. But you are right about your suspicions with the DVD cover, none of those people are in the movie. I doubt it's from a different movie--I think it's more just a weird anomoly. The Ungovernable Force 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked on IMDB and, the DVD cover is, apparently, from the right film, though like you say, I'm sure none of them were in the film. On the other hand, that film was shit anyway. Madashell 11:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guns Don't Kill People?

The argument used in the defense of this and similar publications includes such statements as "guns don't kill people, people kill people." This can be interpreted as meaning the information contained itself in The Anarchist Cookbook is only dangerous in the hands of people who intend to use it.

I don't think this statement makes sense. The phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people," is not applicable because people who defend freedom of information do not necessarily defend freedom to own weapons. It actually is impossible to kill someone with the Anarchist Cookbook, it is just information, whereas it is possible to kill someone with a gun. Guns do kill people, books don't. The argument is not that the explosives and other dangerous things described in the book are harmless, but rather that no information should be suppressed, no matter what sorts of dangerous ideas they express.

actually, guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. The Ungovernable Force 15:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

when was the last time that a gun was put i trial for killing a person? any weapon, (knife, gun, grenade, even a nuclear bomb) will not do anything if it is just sitting on the table. you need a person to want to hurt another person. did you know that a pen makes a great weapon when aimed correctly? so should we make pens illegal because you can stab a person with them? i have met people that could kill you faster with only their hands when you had a gun/knife. any inanimate object is just that inanimate. information and objects are used how they are wanted to be used by the person using them. this doesnt make them evil. and it is possable to kill someone with the Anarchist Cookbook under the right circumstances, eventhough they are nearly impossable.

What if it's a badly made nuclear bomb, and it's giving off radon gas? That would kill people.--216.174.135.102 (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually is impossible to kill someone with the Anarchist Cookbook, it is just information, whereas it is possible to kill someone with a gun. Guns do kill people, books don't. unless you beat em over the head repetedly with a hard cover version,i do agree it would be most hard to kill some one with the paperback version.(four tildes,6/29/7_@4:25pm)i make my own now

any weapon, (knife, gun, grenade, even a nuclear bomb) will not do anything if it is just sitting on the table.
The last time I've heard of a student killing ten people in his campus, he wasn't using his hands, he wasn't using a knife, he was using a gun. Between banning guns and banning books, I'd prefer the first one.

This seems like one of those pseudo-sociological discussions about violence. You're letting this thing we call "ethics and morals" get in the way of "logic and fact." Issues of this nature are almost completely unresolvable because we humans let our beliefs get in the way of reason. I'm not going off on an anti-religious tangent here, but if you really want to argue something like banning weaponry versus banning information, realize that if you ban one thing, you must ban all things. This same ideal applies to police radio scanners. It's legal to buy and own them, but illegal to use them. Just on a different scale and with different items.

Also, since we seem to be bandying quite a few liberal bumper stickers, how about this one: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Vicious203 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie

Does anyone have objections to giving the movie its own page? If not, I'll be gald to do it. Please leave me an objection if you have one. It is not directly connected to the actual book. Caf3623 22:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The Ungovernable Force 18:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be split. Benashbe 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

f.y.i. I made its own page the other day Caf3623 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uses in different media

I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't want to include any new section into the article, so I'll just put this here... Should this wikipedia article contain a list of references to the book in other books, movies, etc? If so, here's one: The book is confiscated from Eli's locker in episode 19 of the second Veronica Mars Series. Christoph Neuroth 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Cookbook

As far as I know, the Internet Anarchist Cookbook contains little (or possibly nothing) that is in the paper version, although I cannot swear to the truth of this. Supersheep 11:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Em. I was thinking of the Jolly Roger Cookbook. Where is the Anarchist Cookbook, then? Cos I've never seen it online... Supersheep 12:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again... According to the Beyondweird page (the last link), the William Powell Anarchist Cookbook is not available online. I will leave this about a week so that someone can provide any countervailing evidence, and then I will chance the article so that reference is made to the Jolly Roger Cookbooks and the like. Also, I will try track down a copy (I know someone who has access) and see if I can find the text anywhere online, but that may be a while. Supersheep 12:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My local library has two different versions of it. It irked me--I was looking for books about anarchism and that's the crap they have! I won't be back there for another week though, but if I am and you haven't found a copy yet, I'll check. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it - the guy I know lives in Dublin, and I won't be there for a while. Not to mention that I'm unlikely to see him til college restarts in October. If you need access to the Jolly Roger Cookbooks, then just leave me a comment and I can mail them to you or something. Supersheep 07:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 69 or 70?

There seems to be some disagreement over when it was first released. I think it was 70, and since the people changing it haven't given a reason, I'm going to put it back to 1970. This is backed up by a Washington Post article on the death of the publisher. [1] Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See felony for more details?

That parenthetical in the first section just sounds dumb.

[edit] Consipiracy?

Given that the Amazon "review" from the author says that it was not edited before publication, and it would be TRIVIAL to confirm or squash any rumour that "today's version is not the same as the 1970 version" (by comparing two physical copies) I can't imagine there's any teeth to that "rumour". I think this section should be deleted unless it can be verified with an actual source (at least a source that shows the RUMOUR exists somewhere other than this page!) --Cassandra7 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recipies in the Anarchist Cookbook

I belive that the Anarchist Coobook dose bear relevance to anarchy. However most anarchists do not see the point being made. The Book is not a guide on how to bring about an anarchistic society but rather what to do once in one.

The book is more "what can be done in a lawless society without fear of severe punishment"

And the article was wrong when they stated that the Anarchist Cookbook dose not contain any real recipies. Having read the book i found a whole chapter titled "Yummy Recipies for Human Consumption" which went into detail about how the body of a human should be divided and prepared for eating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adrianthegreat (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] References

I have all but cleaned up the lack of references for this article. Unfortunately I cannot find any reference to back up the following statement:

   Because of this, access to the book is often restricted, with some bookstores refusing to sell the book to persons under 21 years of age

I have thusly removed this line, but if anyone has a reference to back up this very believable (and hopefully true) statement, please feel free to put it back in, but remember to reference it! --Zaf^(t) 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disinformation and lies

A very interesting file titled "The anarchist cookbook is Disinformation and Lies - Here's Why" can be found via emule, explains how this cookbook might be written by the CIA. the assay is titled: "Recipes for Nonsurvival - The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell Reviewed by Esperanza Godot Taken from: "New Libertarian", Volume V, Number III, April 1988."

Worth mentioning I think.

[edit] The book is not "illegal" in the UK

[This source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7030096.stm] states several things:

an unnamed boy is in court on terrorism act charges
he has not yet been prosecuted, or given any defense
it is alleged that he has a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook
he faces two charges, neither of which are guaranteed to be broken by possessing or obtaining the cookbook.

It may turn out that the court finds the material in the cookbook useless for terrorism. He may have more accurate manuals for terrorism than the anarchist cookbook. Or maybe he has actual bomb-making materials. While a lot of people are in histrionics about this news article, it's not conclusive that possession of this ancient, useless book has suddenly been criminalised.

As it happens, I am in possession of bomb-making equipment, as are most households in the UK - I have a packet of flour, which is enough to make an explosive bomb all by itself. The knowledge that school chemistry teachers impart to kids is more than enough to make even more dangerous bombs. Basically, the Terrorism Act contains overbroad clauses that could potentially lock up anyone in Britain for technically breaching them. Good for us citizens that the UK government only uses these law on uppity Muslims, isn't it? 192.18.1.36 11:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe he has actual bomb-making materials.
That's the point. It is said that he's facing two charges, one for possession of material for terrorist purpose. Which material ? We need to know more about that before going further.

As an additional nitpick, while there are such things as "9mm rifles", they are extremely rare and that phrase is generally a warning sign that the reporter doesn't actually know what kind of gun it is... Dmesg (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to buy

hi.

Just wondering is this cookbook available to buy. i think it would be interesting to read.

Kind regards Michelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.213.25 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Anarchist Cookbook is available to buy. And it is now available in a hard copy also. For more info email me at lukeb@arkansas.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.205.113 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised edition of Anarchist's Cookbook

A revised edition is also available on the net. This edition (Anarchist Cookbook 2004) features more reading and is said to be 'more practical'. It is also known by the name "Anubis Handbook" and was written by some shady caracter which calls himself 'Atheist Anarchist' (size of Word doc is 1583K). A also 'usable' alternative is said to be the US Field Manual: Improvised Munitions (FM FM 5-250 ??).

Include in article.

KVDP (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: To do