Thanks for that - I did read it at (or around) the time. Re-reading it was useful. A few things sprang out - firstly I agree that anti-fascism is a rearguard action, that it has to exist because of the failure of the 'left'.
Secondly ( and something I hadn't remembered) was the warning of the danger of getting involved in tribal or gang warfare with an opposition that only wants to 'play'. With some sections of the far-right we're there already - as the EDL has splintered and deviated from it's original mission statement we have seen the development of little street groups whose only purpose is a scrap with the left. In a sense this represents a victory - they've retreated from any attempt to create a mainstream movement and instead run around putting up stickers on lefty social centres and outing people online.
However I think there are some crucial differences between anti-fascism in the early nineties and where we have found ourselves now. Thanks to the BNP decision to opt for a purely electoral route and the collapse of the NF there was little or no street fascism to contend with for around 15 years. There were odd (very odd) attempts to march in Dover and Margate by the NF and a few Blood & Honour gigs. Tiny, tiny groupuscules like the British People's banged on about the Illuminati, ZOG and the Rothschilds from the sidelines and very occasionally made a nuisance for themselves.
2009 saw the emergence of the EDL. Unlike the BNP or the NF this was a single issue right wing campaign. It effectively attempted to import the tactics of the Orange March to mainland UK. The EDL are and were and online phenomenon, they don't aim for day to day 'control of the streets' but more the creation of a collective 'common sense', aided and abetted by the mainstream media. There were no public meetings or attempts to leaflet in small groups, let alone stand for election. As a single issue campaign there was never any attempt to outline any kind of social or economic ideas.
A lot of this stuff is obviously shrouded in mystery but it certainly appears that for a while monied US neo-cons were prepared to support the EDL (flying Tommy et al out to the Twin Towers memorial etc) and there was a certain amount of intellectual work being done e.g Gates of Vienna blog on developing a 'clash of civilisations' narrative. So this sentence from "Filling the Vacuum" seemed particularly appropriate "In addition the fear of physical violence means that they are unable to bring their more articulate middle class supporters onto the streets for fear of losing them entirely.". Once opposition to the EDLs marches began to be organised effectively they became punch-ups, even mini-riots. Did anti-fascists win every single encounter? No (but as an old instructor once told me, "you can't swim without getting wet and you can't box without getting hit"), but by making an EDL demo a confrontational experience the intellectual wing faded away. Despite all the online bluster attendances at EDL demos that promised to be heavy (e.g Tower Hamlets, Walthamstow, Bradford) were always markedly lower than those that were going to be an easy ride (e.g Luton or Peterborough)
It's my belief that original plan behind an EDL demo was to force confrontation between the League and local residents in ethnic minority areas in order to present images of an ongoing 'race war' to provoke further conflict and harden public opinion against rioting Muslims. An effect that arguably the NF had achieved with the Bradford Riots. It was and is worth making sure that there is a sizeable 'white' opposition to these ultra-nationalist marches. It muddles the clash of civilisations narrative and extends the hand of solidarity to marginalised groups. (I remember being in Bradford for I think the third EDL demo there, and being dressed as I was, I was approached by four local Asian/Muslim men to suss out if I was EDL - My accent gave me away immediatley - "You're not from Yorkshire are ya?", "No, I've come up from Brighton" , "Brighton? Are you an anarchist? You do a fucking good job you lot" - smiles and handshakes all round)
So we had an active ultra-nationalist/ English loyalist street movement but no obvious mainstream political movement to take advantage of it. The BNPs relationship with the EDL has always been fractious. Some of this might be down to the aforementioned social and economic policy - the BNP were quite lefty in their economic policy, nationalising the railways etc and thus could be seen as direct competitor to the left. The neo-con influence on the EDl meant that whatever scraps of economic or social ideas were expressed were firmly Thatcherite. There was an abortive attempt to create a British Freedom party for about five minutes.
Which brings us onto UKIP. The nationalist street movement has pretty much en masse decided that UKIP is for them. As such they've been waging a campaign of intimidation against anti-UKIP campaigners, especially in Thanet. It really isn't clear to what extent UKIP welcome this - certainly they haven't gone out of their way to condemn it. So now we potentially have a nationalist street movement in alignment with a legal political party, just not under the same banner.
In one sense the challenge should be easier - UKIP do not come at us from the left, their economic and social policies are firmly neo-liberal. Is the left up to the job?