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."

Re:PDF Torrent?

[Tink2000]

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.

Re:wow

[headkase]

Read a book called: The Prince [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:wow

[Ihlosi]

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.

Re:wow

[krou]

"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.

Re:wow

[NightlordTW]

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.

Re:wow

[DNS-and-BIND]

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 [constitution.org] and get an education. Thanks.

Re:wow

[dogmatixpsych]

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 [usnews.com]

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

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

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

Re:wow

[syousef]

>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.