Found the arguments convincing and provoked lots of (painful!) self-reflection.
But on the 'provoke' word...polemics have their place, and I appreciated the author's righteous anger and eloquence in getting across the material and epistemic injustices. But I don't know how successful that would be in changing the minds of others fully entrenched in a pacifist worldview - likely it would just result in defensiveness. Some other reviews have picked up on the referencing and use of anecdotes - more thick descriptions / fictionalised autoethnography might have come across more like a composite of Gelderloos's huge experience in activist communities rather than point-scoring.

There are a fair few strawpeople making an appearance, especially in the 'Nonviolence is Patriarchal' - which I found the least persuasive of all (hot topic: don't cite the Hebrew Bible, calling it 'the Old Testament', when you clearly haven't read it), which might bely the air of machismo that pervaded most of the book except the introduction and conclusion. A lot of points were made in the conclusion (especially about the nonexistence of 'violence' and 'nonviolence' as an essential duality) that I wish had been expanded on in the main body of the book rather than repetition of the same points, just with different historical examples. There was no analysis of dis/ablism as a violent structure, and how disability affects discussions of nonviolence versus diversity of tactics.

If the tone of the introduction and conclusion were sustained throughout, this book could have done a lot more to persuade pragmatic and even principled pacifists of the main argument: that resisting and transforming the violence inherent under capitalism, white supremacy, imperialism and so on, means sometimes deploying violent tactics.