I wrote the Anarchist Cookbook in 1969. Now I see its premise as flawed
> The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence.I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of the most debated topics in all of human history. The leaders of almost every major revolution eventually reached precisely the opposite conclusion.The book may in fact do harm in the hands of those who are rash and quick to anger. But I don't think that has anything to do with something that is inherently illogical.