Pacifism v. Defense v. Intimidation

I detest the pathology of pacifism. The article The nonviolent philosophy of clinic escorts made me think about the effectiveness of a not non-violence strategy. However, I just arrived at how bankcrupt it is to declare non-violence because a rejection of any pledge to non-violence in protecting a clinic or abortion seekers, it would just end in me possibly breaking the law (even if the anti-abortions fucks broke it first). It shows how "defense" can't even be as adequate as needed when up against an oppenent who has endeared themselves to the status quo.

This turned my mind to think about when Sacto SHARP provided escorts/security for clinics providing abortions in the 1990's. I think part of their success was a factor of intimidation. In turn, this turned my thinking to intimidation as a tactic. If I am completely honest, intimidation is a tactic that I often embrace but is it naturally hierarchical? Can intimidation be used as a means for progress or is it bound to a 'might makes right' attitude which itself ought to be rejected as an anarchist tactic?

... I think this is what they call prefigurative politics.

I would love to hear opinions.