andygates

Vile Nazi twunt Nick Griffin has been egged when trying to hold a press conference.

Good.

This isn't about democracy or him being properly elected.  He's just  vile racist cretin who deserves to be hounded mercilessly until he has a lovely public nervous breakdown and ends up at the Priory next to that singing woman and some druggy celebs.

I mean, really, this is the public face of people who think that Lenny Henry, Freema Agyeman, Zeinab Badawi and Gok Wan are bad and need to be kicked off this sceptered isle for not being British enough.  Lenny's a Brummie!  Freema grew up in Hackney! Zeinab's dead posh and Gok's a Leicester boy. 

So let's be absolutely clear: Griffin's the figurehead of people as foul, disruptive and stupid as Fred Phelps.  That's a very special, very elite shitlist.  These are the very zenith of putrid idiocy.  Phelps, you'll recall, was barred from coming to the UK on public order grounds: so many people think he needs a slapping that the mere hint of his feculent stench provokes breach of the peace.  Let's hope the same applies to  Griffin. 

And if you hear of him coming to Devon to speak, please let me know.  I have an omelette that needs making.

Oxford Union are hosting a debate on free speech tonight, and they invited a couple of people with pretty unfashionable opinions: Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right BNP, and David Irving, the holocaust-denying pseudohistorian.  There is predictable uproar and protest.

Once upon a time, I was a strong advocate of Voltaire's position: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Not so much any more.  Thing is, I've been around long enough now to see some utter nonsense get trolled out and lapped up by the general public.  I don't think that the general public are especially stupid, but I do think that expecting them to judge an opinion coolly, based on the facts, is naive.  And for a while this has been vexing me.  Why, when cool heads can see clearly, does this tripe still have a hold on people?

I think the memetic theory holds water here.  Meme theory says that the "strongest" ideas will flourish in the ecosystem of our minds.  "Strong" does not mean "good" or "valuable" or "true" - "strong" means that the idea has high fecundity and fidelity.  It has to get into lots of minds, and be the same when it gets there.  Now for the political controversy: I think that reactionary, tribal memes are stronger than cool, rational memes.  The stuff you see in your right-wing rant newspaper is vigorous memetic seed; the thought-out arguments full of nuance are weaker, because they are so subtle - they take more effort to impart, and are more vulnerable to mutation.  Their one strength is truth, but the verity of a meme is a pretty weak test.  That comes later, and by then the reactionary memes can be dug well in, reinforced in their own little complexes.

And this is why my path has differed from Voltaire's.  Some ideas may be very, very strong memes, and yet be utter crap: mental kudzu, if you like.  Holocaust denial is a perfect example: there are living witnesses of the Holocaust and yet this can persist?  It's utter, gibbering bunk, yet it has hooks.  So no, while I respect the necessity to have proper discussion, I will not defend to the death Irving's right to contaminate anyone's mind-pool with his virulent, dangerous, silly memes.