As long as you don’t do naked street yoga - that’s over the line.
I do. You may be someone who believes in anarchism, but you are not one of the organized Black Bloc Anarchists, who have said > "When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights … After N30 [30 November], many people will never see a shop window or a hammer the same way again. The potential uses of an entire cityscape have increased a thousand-fold. The number of broken windows pales in comparison to the number of spells—spells cast by a corporate hegemony to lull us into forgetfulness of all the violence committed in the name of private property rights and of all the potential of a society without them. Broken windows can be boarded and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some time to come.
— ACME Collective, quoted in Paris (2003)[80]"
From wiki "Tactics of a black bloc primarily include vandalism of private property,[rioting, and demonstrating without a permit. …Property destruction carried out by black blocs tends to have symbolic significance: common targets include banks, institutional buildings, outlets for multinational corporations gasoline stations, and video-surveillance cameras."
There is no doubt that many anarchists (tho certainly not all) consider property damage as a legitimate tactic. But you seem to be stating that all anarchists everywhere use violence all the time. And a sentence from your own quote bears additional scrutiny
What is the symbolic significance of some random stranger dressed in black breaking the windows of some random business?
And black bloc tactics do not belong to anarchists alone. The pro Democracy and Free Hong Kong demonstrators in China also dress all in black with gas masks and umbrellas, and no one would call them anarchists.
ETA: your first quote is from 21years ago and was specifically because the protests at that time were against the WTO. So property damage of specific buildings carried alot of symbolism.
I dont know, lets ask him…wait… they havent caught him yet and arent too sure of who he is. We do have a anonymous tipster tho, they are always solid sources of information. But he did turn peaceful protests into a violent riot, so that is a success, of a sort.
But no, I was talking about the Black Blok anarchists who show up at peaceful demonstrations and turn them violent. They break windows, burn cop cars, etc.
I am sure there are people who sit in their easy chair in front of their computer and consider themselves anarchists, but never actually do anything. Which, if you think of it, makes them better human beings than the ones who do random violence.
The anarchists formed a black bloc, blocking streets, smashing windows, destroying cop cars, and other acts of vandalism and violence.
The “Battle for Seattle” works as an excellent example of why the black bloc tactic is controversial. Its purpose is to get away with violent, illegal acts of civil disobedience. Some would argue this isn’t the only time a black bloc is used, but historically, the tactic is deployed to commit violence and property damage. This is obviously not something the police would condone, but other, non-violent protesters often try to break up black blocs as well. After all, the use of violence can delegitimize a protest, making it easy to characterize the opposition as “thugs.” Throughout the WTO protests, black bloc anarchists were chased away by other protesters numerous times, sometimes shouting “no violence, no violence.”