No. I'm saying the police in western countries already have a wide range of powers which they use against Nazi groups (or any other group that's committing acts of political violence). This has not lead to a totalitarian state where mainstream conservatives are being targeted. i.e. the slippery slope didn't happen.

I do think the police should act to try and prevent violent groups from committing violence. Your position seems to be that the state should accept violence as long as the people committing it claim to be political? If anything organised political violence is the type of violence that it's the most important to prevent because it has by far the largest potential for harm.

I can talk about specific things the UK police have done when targeting 'extremist' groups and how I disprove of them if you want (undercover police assuming fake identities to the extent of having children with women in the targeted groups being one). But disapproving of specific things isn't the same as saying the police shouldn't be investigating and infiltrating organisations advocating violent ideologies.

No. That's a very uncharitable description of their view.

My point is that he has not recognized the dangers of his viewpoint.

It is dangerous to believe "oh, I don't care what an oppressive government does in order to stop Nazis" because a whole lot of people are being called Nazis these days.

The same exact thing happened during the red scare. It was not JUST the revolutionary communists who were literally trying to overthrow the government that got oppressed. A whole lot of other people who definitely didn't deserve it, got oppressed to.

Human rights exist for everyone for a reason.

No, I don't believe so. They're not people that "the police just said were Nazis". They're people who self-identify as white nationalists and Nazis.

Yes. It's worth pointing out that in general it's really really easy to identify these groups because they are entirely open about their aims and ideals. That's the point of them.