And keep in mind we’re not talking about whatever racists happen to be at the top echelons of the BNP, we’re talking about those 12,000 people who took an interest in the party for any reason at all. You’re saying they “deserve” to be persecuted. I’m saying they don’t. And I feel anyone who believes people “deserve” to be persecuted for nothing more than thoughts can only be called a thought policeman.

Yet if of whipping boys you want to speak, I should demand that you cast the mote from your own eye: the media is obsessed varyingly with immigrants, single mothers, the obscene notion that ‘equality’ means forcing a ‘homosexual agenda’ (whatever that is!) down the throats of our children. The media is obsessed with demonization of all minorities. The only difference in respect of the BNP is that they deserve it, and it is because they do their own fair share of victimization.

Do I have evidence to show up the BNP as thugs? I’ve discussed more than a few concrete examples on this blog – you need only use the search function.

On the subject of the Guardian’s investigation, I submit that you’re a bloody idiot if you think that it showed up little. In fact it showed up a consistent effort by the BNP leadership to clean up its image by ensuring members don’t use racist or anti-semitic language in public, whilst happily using it themselves in private. It demonstrated that the BNP is secretive and desirous that its clandestine meetings not face public scrutiny.

Such a party! Such “British Lions” they are, you will no doubt claim, that they need to hide from a ragtag of students and ageing hippies.

The study also uncovered an attempt by the BNP leadership to bring in funds from their racist brethren in the United States, for which the electoral commission was to investigate them.

So little do you know.

And you talk to me about cheap, crass generalizations! Have you any evidence at all to back up such accusations? I was linked to this article via the Pub Philosopher blog. The blogger makes a very good case that these stereotypes have no basis in fact and are the inevitable result of a leftist media obsessed with a whipping boy. The Guardian’s six month undercover investigation uncovered nothing more radical than the presence of a ballet dancer! Presumably a thuggish ballet dancer.

And there IS a marketplace of ideas. Hatred of feudalism and monarchy proves it! Why do people believe feudalism, monarchy and caste systems are evil? Because they have seen the equivalents and they can see that capitalism, freedom and individual rights are superior. That is analogous to the economic marketplace: chose one product because it is superior to the other. How can we know that capitalism is better than communism, than individual freedom is better than aristocracy and a caste system? Because we can see they are objectively better than other ideas by comparing them. If there was no marketplace of ideas there would be no way of knowing which ideas are better. And multiculturalism and cultural relativism claims there is no such thing as “better”. What Ayn Rand called hatred of the good for being the good.

That’s the fastest way to cave to the BNP thirst for race war.

Judging by your comments elsewhere on the web, you’ve got no idea about the far left and prefer to simply throw around generalisations – about ‘communist front groups’ and ‘Trotskyite anti-fascists’. I’ve actually been on the hard end of WNP (a splinter of the BNP) phone calls and threats in the middle of the night, to myself and my family. I’ve been a part of anti-fascist and anti-racist campaigns for years – and the most we get up to is defending ourselves if confronted while putting up posters.

The truth is, there is no such thing as a ‘marketplace of ideas’. Ideas are tied to the material interests which they represent – which is why some ideas will never return, because their material basis has been destroyed: absolutist monarchy and feudalism to name two. If you think differently, it exposes the great weakness of your idealist philosophizing.

All religions and political sects are discriminatory! It’s what I would call having an opinion. I would not kick a fundamentalist Christian out of public office so long as their beliefs didn’t interfere with their duty. I’m convinced that’s possible. A very important point: most Christians and Jews are moderates in Europe today. A great number of Muslims still take their religion seriously. (See my YouTube channel ThePissedOffAtheist for a quick description of my views)

And you’re comparing BNPers to terrorists is a classic example of amoral cultural relativism and immoral multiculturalism that has squeezed the moral and reasoning faculties out of the left. There was a time when the left held the moral high ground over the right; no more.

And the Muslim kicking out the blind man is an example of actions as opposed to thoughts. If the Muslim had just kept the irrational religiously motivated “I hate dogs” nonsense in his head there would be no problem. This is the distinction I’m trying to make when talking about leaving politics at the door: not acting upon views that one will always hold.

I don’t believe in special treatment for the religious – but that includes not giving doctors the right to opt out of providing abortions or contraceptives on anything other than medical grounds. If we’re against special treatment for religions, we need to be against it all across the board.

However, most Muslims (and most Christians and most Jews) are very selective in the application of their doctrine of choice. There are Muslim groups which are proscribed, and rightly so: the right-wing press calls them Islamofascist. I don’t disagree with that assessment, though I disagree with the subjective position from which the right-wing press casts such a denunciation.

If a Muslim’s views are so discriminatory, they too should be disbarred from public service. Same for a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or any religious sect, or any discriminatory political sect.

Of course your answer to me is that I am myself being discriminatory, but then that’s like saying locking up terrorists is discrimination against terrorists. It is a BNP members’ choice to support a racist party. It is the choice of a terrorist to bomb a building. It is not the choice of a black person to be black, or an asian person to be asian.

Nor is it a free choice for immigrants to come here or not to come here. If the definition of free choice requires that we establish a credible alternative, then immigration is necessary as much for political as economic or social reasons. We’re simply bearing our share of the load, here in the UK – a load which, I might point out, the economic policies of the West have a large hand in creating.

I don’t regret my desire to learn more about them though. That’s the whole idea of the free marketplace of ideas: listen to another man’s ideas and accept or reject them based upon their perceived merits. Your philosophy is perhaps best summarized as a mixed economy of ideas: allow most ideas to be heard but silence and persecute some ideas which are deemed objectionable. But it’s like prohibition or the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge: tell people they can’t drink or eat the fruit and they’ll probably be keener to drink or eat than if they were free to do so. The unearned mystique around the BNP, due to media obsession with them, leads a great number of people to be interested in what would otherwise be an obscure and mostly unheard of party.

And what about my all important question?