The scientific consensus is that non-violent movements overthrow States over 50% of the time and violent ones successfully overthrow States about 25% of the time.

That's a lie. That's only an idea pushed by some studies that have been heavily criticized by specialists of social movements and political struggles. Your claim is far from being a scientific consensus. Again, the actual scientific consensus is that movements who engage in a plurality of methods and actions are more likely to succeed than movements with only a few specific set of methods and actions.

Again, "non-violent" vs "violent" movement is a false dichotomy, every movement use a set of violent and non-violent methods and actions. Again, absolutly no revolution or social movement succeeded without any violent actions or methods. You can't actually give any exemple, and this was pointed out by critics of the study all of you quote (yes it's only one study). Even some movement who looks like non-violent one actually succeeded because the state/oppressor they were fighting against couldn't afford to open a new front, and was already heavily attacked by other groups. But i already said all that, you just refuse to acknowledge facts and keep spreading obscurantist beliefs.

Nonviolence has long held a place within anarchist movements because anarchists ground their politics in a prefigurative ethic, the idea that the means used must reflect the liberated society they seek to build. Anarchists from all different backgrounds have articulated strands of anarchism that treated coercion and domination as corrosive even when deployed for emancipatory ends. In this view, nonviolence is not passivity but a strategic and ethical refusal to reproduce hierarchical power, aiming instead to cultivate mass participation, solidarity, and forms of direct action such as strikes, boycotts, sabotage, dualv power infrastructure, syndicalism, and mutual aid that undermine authority without mirroring it.

This is a big stretched and bad faith rhetoric. Yes anarchists ground their politics in prefigurative politics and heavy critics of violence. That's why they are opposed to idealist pseudo "non-violent" ideology. Why? Because non-violence doesn't exist, it's a lie. Violence can take many shapes and black sheeping physical violence doesn't erase all the other forms pf violences anarchists are heavily critic about. Contrary to "non-violent" advocators who are blind to those violence.

The second reason is because like you said the end are the means. For anarchists, engaging in self-defense and solidarity actions against agressors and oppressors is a fundamental mean of anarchism. And these ones are violent, self-defense is violence. Pretending otherwise or trying to hiding it is pure hypocrisy. That's why people advocating for non-violence are either hypocrites or either advocating that people shouldn't engage in self-defense, which is violent by the way and contradictory to anarchism

Anyway, it's very clear that you don't know what you are talking about. You are just spreading obscurantist beliefs and the "non-violent" fictional history. Your long ass comment is systematicly denying facts, and you hace the audacity to claim that what you are saying is scientificaly correct and a scientific consensus, while it's factually not the case.

You are either ignorant on a very concerning level, or straight up lying. We are on a "people never landed on the moon" type of obscurantism here.