there is value in this point of view, especially at the end, but certain aspects concern me.
I guess I must fall into the category of

'the up-in-arms brigade' who 'should be questioning their own attempted coup of the global resistance movement'.

So it is as such that I say to this author: there is no 'brigade attempting a 'coup', (apart from SWP of course). The whole point is that we are together, despite and because of our diversity, and we HAVE to find ways of
working that are both effective and minimise injury (psychic and physical)and death.
For many people this means avoiding violence.
There is no dishonesty in that.
I am one of the people who would always say I do not like violence. I understand why it happens and why people feel the need to perpetuate it but I have not decided to join a people's army and smash the state. If I did I would not be part of a mass, mostly peaceful movement for a humane society, I would have joined or formed a cell of well-armed, highly trained freedom fighters/terrorists. And I would know that I was up against basically the US military - probably the best armed fighting machine in history.
Because there are many others similarly wary of launching all out war, groups like

'INPEG and the GSF produced documents laying down "rules" for "participation" in what were illegal blockades of international meetings.'

My impression is that these were agreed because they embodied the feelings of most of the masses coming along, and because they avoided, for a while at least, the state having an excuse to brand us all terrorists and smash us with their superior firepower. Therefore I disagree that

'The GSF tactical manifesto was insulting to the resistance history of many of it's signatory groups.'

It was tactical. Nobody had to sign who didn't want to. (I didn't - though not because I disagreed or felt 'insulted'.) We may have to change our tactics now they have started to kill and set the fascists on us more
openly, but that does not mean those tactics were necessarily wrong, let alone dishonest. It does mean we have to face up to the violent urges probably lurking within every human being and ensure they are channelled
into constructive action (and obviously not into chucking stuff at the black bloc for example)

'The Black Bloc do not "detract from 'the message'"- they have a different message.'

Fair enough. Of course, otherwise there would be no need to have a name and dress code and ethic. But as long as they, or anyone else for that matter, are part of mass actions then I think it is only fair enough if we make sure
that our messages, and tactics, are not in direct conflict. We do have to change and learn after Genoa, and we must not exclude people just because they prefer a different way of working. But this involves not only tolerance and understanding of full-on anarchist ethics and tactics, but also not getting into any witch hunts against liberals and pacifists - some of whose contributions to this movement even this author would surely recognise.

We are winning because we are many and diverse, and like the author says, we need to focus on our common enemies.

Primarily in the last 50 years, an orgy of financial empire building has been taking place from all sectors of local and federal government in which at the present, composite government has pulled off the largest financial take over ever seen in history of this world as the public was intentionally distracted, and lulled asleep by the perpetrators of the take over.

Composite US government wealth today makes the entire wealth of the private sector look insignificant in comparison.

Federal and Local Government's gross income, 1999, was 8.5 Trillion dollars. The entire population of this country had a gross personal income, 1999, of 8.2 trillion dollars and net after government taxation of 4.8 trillion dollars. Composite Government brought in twice that of the entire nation.

As an American, or one of it's colonies, this is the biggest wake up call you will receive in your life time!

I saw ya basta dishing out a few bashings in Genoa and to be honest they pretty much deserved it. The strength of the white overalls in my opinion is (or was) that the police are made to look like aggressive bastards, committing unjustified attacks on a non-violent group. This was the scenario wanted by the vast majority of people on that march (taking it for granted that the police would attack.)

So it's hardly surprising that after months of planning, unavoidable tension and anticipation (for some reason i expected to be in the middle of the red zone having a cold beer by 5pm), when 2 or 3 guys show up with rocks in hand and burn a car and smash a few windows, they're going to get twatted! This is nothing against 'violent' tactics or people who use them... After the front end of the civil disobedience march was devastated by police, the rock throwers (many of whom may just have been caught up in the adrenaline of the situation) took over and fought the police back magnificently. In the situation it was entirely justified and showed that there are times when passion can overcome police kevlar.

The Black bloc were doing actions all across the city, why would just a few of them show up on a march which everyone with an ear knew was intended to be non-violent. Chances are they beat up as many undercover cops or hired nazi goons as they did lost black bloccers.