I will do my best to elucidate what I can on your points. I'm tired, and coupled with being a simple man my apologies if I don't explain myself well, or something seems bound in ignorance.

You are not objecting to their "Anti-Fascism" you are objecting to the specific people who are attacking innocents (which is not inherently Anti-Fascist). It sounds like you disagree with the tactics of some individual bad-actors who call themselves "Anti-Fascist".

In my position, I was conceding your point that anti fascists would use

endorses any conceivable action (censorship/protest/violence) that impedes perceived Fascism.

I'm not an expert on who is or isn't, so perhaps it would be fairer to say that if they endorse methods that harm innocent people in some misguided view it impedes fascism, that I am against.

Sovereign-Individualism is incompatible with FASCISM, which would make you a tacit (technical) Anti-Fascist.

I will cede this point due to ignorance. I don't label myself as such, but perhaps I do fit using your definition.

The "problem" here doesn't appear to be "Anti-Fascism", rather it appears to be "The Broad-Brush Fallacy"

Yes, I agree. Which is why I subscribe to

But like the person who said they couldn't define what was pornographic/obscene, but recognized it when they saw it.

Laws such as you mention here

There should always be a clear and Quantifiable distinction between what is legal and what is illegal.

sound good in theory, yet are applied without the clear and quantifiable results. One example that strikes home is the law pertaining to the use of a loaded firearm in the commission of a crime. I had a relative by marriage who was robbing houses to support his drug habit. One of the houses he was caught for had loaded guns which he stole. They stacked the crime of loaded gun in commission of crime which resulted in more years behind bars for him than the burglaries. That was clearly not what the intent behind that law was, but its clear and concise language allowed for such misuse. The war on drugs is another instance in my opinion that shows how rigid definitions cause more harm than good. Judges hands are tied now in sentencing, giving all the power to prosecutors offices to send many people to lengthy incarceration sentences due to mandatory sentencing laws. Which are also manipulated further as a side observation, in stacking charges to entice many to plea to charges they probably shouldn't be.

Yes, I believe in tribalism. It seems obvious to me that humans naturally have tribal tendencies, which further leads to localism and then nationalism. I do think nationalism allows for the crushing of local communities, but seems necessary to some extent to keep neighboring hordes from sacking/pillaging, as history has shown people in groups have a tendency to do. Shame that things can't be kept local.

This is about the best i can muster, and hope it solidified my perception on the subject better, right or wrong in your view.