It’s intended as a form of satire. If you don’t get it, or if it does not entertain you then that’s fine. But not everything has to be full on, heavy analysis and furrowed brow seriousness all the time.

What difference does it make what someone wears? On a broader level it doesn’t make any difference – clearly a bomber jacket will not turn you into a fascist, and a suit won’t stop you from being a fascist. And this is the whole point of the article. The BNP is an organisation that have entered into the mainstream on a horse of pseudo-respectability. They pose as ‘run of the mill’ politicians in order to convince people that it is safe to vote for them.

By drawing the contrast of their current image with the stereotype of a jackbooted racist, it makes the point that they are at root no different in ideology to their former incarnations. Whether you like it or not, image does make a difference to a lot of people out there – that is exactly why the BNP have chosen to adorn suits. Most people DO get influenced by what a person chooses to wear. Believe me, if Nick Griffin looked like he was in a skinhead gang he would not be invited to appear on a show like Question Time.

“I’m confused why you would want to give so much time to composing an essay about the BNP. Ignoring them and avoiding the state would seem to be much better strategies, fraught with all manner of blessings.”

I agree with you up to a certain point. Groups such as the BNP are best ignored when they pose no real political threat, but that point has long been passed. Their presence on QT demonstrates that they are no longer a ‘fringe’ party, they are mainstream and will only grow larger if the social problems they capitalise on are not addressed. Ignoring them will no longer make them go away.

“Please say more about the economy fixing itself while interventionism reigns supreme”

It won’t fix itself whilst interventionism continues. It was a line with not enough thought put into it. “sooner or later the state might allow the economy might fix itself and people might stop looking for scapegoats” would be more accurate

should read as

“sooner or later the state might allow the economy to fix itself, and people might stop looking for scapegoats”

Is Gordon Brown, then, svelte? lol

Please say more about the economy fixing itself while interventionism reigns supreme.

I’m confused why you would want to give so much time to composing an essay about the BNP. Ignoring them and avoiding the state would seem to be much better strategies, fraught with all manner of blessings.