"Right or Left, I want No Part in Extremism" - Milli Hill

[WhereDidSummerGoAgain]

A thoughtful article by Milli Hill today.

https://millihill.substack.com/p/right-or-left-i-want-no-part-of-extremism

I can't help but find myself agreeing with her.

I know there's been a lot of debate on here about Kelly-Jay and whether she supports the far right.

Milli's article links to a Twitter post by Tommy Robinson showing an event and his inner circle. Kelly-Jay is there, dressed in a Union Jack.

This is pretty conclusive now, isn't it? You don't go and hang out with racists like Tommy Robinson and pals in times like these if you don't support them, surely?!

Milli's stood up for Kelly-Jay before, but this is a step too far for her, and for me too.

Just wondering what others think? This really doesn't look like a mistake this time.

@Grammarnut the students at Stock's university were left wing and did behave appallingly. There is clearly something very wrong with some activist/progressive/left wing culture that allows these groups to develop unchecked and feel self justified in bullying/harassment. But even there the students didn't have much actual power beyond the ability to make threats, complain to the university, harrass Stock etc. The reason it was so bad is because adults at the University and other authorities allowed them to get away with it and or/ceded to their demands. They weren't running the country and could/should have been cracked down on appropriately.
The police also seem to have been completely compromised in cases like Glinners/KJK. But the police are not and have never been a far left organisation (unlike student protest groups) So it's weird that in this one instance they decided to be biased to "the left". Unless, the reasons for them acting the way they did was for other reasons (inherent misogyny, loyalty to friends and ex-coppers, loyalty to their own) many options to choose from.

Exactly! JEEZ. The point I'm trying to get across. If you vilify people you disagree with instead of focusing on the arguments, if you sneer at a peaceful march with no threatening posters, masked men, violent chants, slander working class mixed race GC women like Aja:

You are on the side of the wolf because I can assure there are worse things on the march than Tommy Robinson.

During the show, host Andrew Neil ask Ms Abbott and former Conservative MP Michael Portillo: “Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?”
Ms Abbott responds: “I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm; you can’t say that about the Nazis.”
Remember who allied with Hitler? Stalin - he was a huge step forward wasn't he and a hero to the left.

Why is the peaceful Unite the Kingdom march abhorrent and continual marches with anti- semitic posters and chants acceptable. It's time the left faced up to it's own faults, arrogance and intolerance are the first it needs to consider.

But even there the students didn't have much actual power beyond the ability to make threats, complain to the university, harrass Stock etc.

Where do you think these student go after university?

Rather than debate, these students call people they disagree with bigots and far right. Then they get jobs in politics, nhs, police, the law and continue to think everyone who disagrees with them is far right and bigoted.

The boy that crys wolf is a valid point, because its possible far right will rise again, but the term has been diluted to mean anyone who thinks men should be in womens changing rooms and is waving a flag.

I would say it was in the side of words meaning things and reality being real.

Hence SYL is far right. Unless you change the definition of far right. I don't see why stating that fact would drive people into the hands of extremists anymore than saying whales are mammals would make fish commit suicide. I am sure there are worse people out there than SYL. However, SYL espouses and has long espouses far right ideology. By any normal meaning of the word. It doesn't mean everyone on the march does.

During the show, host Andrew Neil ask Ms Abbott and former Conservative MP Michael Portillo: “Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?”

I have a theory that people have a much stronger aversion to fascism and Nazi ideology in particular than Communism because what happened in Nazi Germany is much more relatable. It was a modern western democracy (admittedly one with problems). And he was voted in. Whereas Russia was a really different society (basically feudal pre the revolution) as was China etc. So it's harder to imagine it "happening here". In fact, I don't think authoritarian communist regimes have ever been voted in democratically (maybe Venezuela?) and I can't think of a time they have seized power in a western democracy.For all the tables might talk about "communist revolution" it's never happened naturally the way Marx wanted and probably can't. Whereas, the Nazis and other authoritarian far right regimes are much more electable. So they seem inherently a lot scarier.

Plus we did fight a war against them that gets talked about a lot.

Actually on reflection I'm beginning to fear the left in general because it's exchanged the politics of pragmatic material reality for post modernist tripe based on identity. It's ideology has spread like fungus through all second tier institutions and third sector organisations, successfully silencing any critical voices.
Hope not Hate names Fair Cop and KJK on their dossier of haters.

Meanwhile women hang, have their education denied, the books they've written banned.

Yes, there are a tiny number of peole in the UK (I think) who believe in ethno-nationalism and would support bombing mosques as part of turning the uk fully white)

These people have nothing to do with UTK march or Robinson.

"Then they get jobs in politics, nhs, police, the law and continue to think everyone who disagrees with them is far right and bigoted."

Most of them get a nice job and slum it in a grotty house share for a few years until mummy and daddy help them put down a deposit for their first flat. Within 15 years they are happily married to a man called Jeremy and have probably moved out of the city to the Cotswolds to have kids. And drive a four by four and feel really guilty about it "but you know we do need a big car because I'm always ferrying Tibby and her friends to sailing/horse riding". And they pay someone to manage their finances to pay as little tax as possible. And probably secretly vote Tory.

It's not that people like that aren't damaging. They did a lot of damage to Stock. But they are a small minority among students tend to be from very well to do families and tend to "settle down" quite quickly. I know there are nutters out there. But kids like the ones harassing stock have always existed. The excessive leftwingness is a phase they grow out of.usually. I don't think Universities are a secret Marxist training academy.

Out of touch politicians, journalists are a problem. But it's not because they are all pushing a far left agenda. Most of the major media outlets in the UK are right leaning.

Words have meanings and I'm not wasting my time dancing around on the head of a pin. Personally I think totalitarianism is the real issue.
The UTK march was a hugely significant event. Focusing on TR is just a tactic to ignore the strength of feeling about the direction of this country. You can no longer just dismiss these views as far right. To link the views of ordinary people with hate is ridiculous, all you are doing is pushing them away.

I said repeatedly I didn't think everyone on that march was far right. That's the opposite of "dismissing their views as far right". But if you want to say someone isn't far right, you need a clear idea of what IS far right. Otherwise you are just blurring the boundaries/running everything together in the same way that some people on the left like to do. SYL is on the other side of that boundary. I like to be able to see the differences between people.

Tommy isn't far right, women have told you that several times.

Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Explain to me rather than tell me how he isn't Far Right then. Since lots of people have already said why they think he does meet that definition. And not "videos of the march showed normal people with a range of views" because we agreed that you can't take everyone with the same brush and that goes both ways.

Still terminating any critical thinking on your part I see

Except it's not a tiny number of people, the threat of far right extremist is growing and is a significant terrorist threat particularly from individuals radicalised online by dangerous misinformation. You cannot say "these people have nothing to do with UTK march or Robinson" - based on what? A march organised by an individual who has started far right groups with speakers spouting the great replacement theory is where I think a radicalised far right I individual would feel very at home. We've seen that those in attendance or watching supportively online swallow misinformation without question given they couldn't even spot the difference between London and and AI pic from Paris. Can you at least give a logical backing for such a statement that no one with far right extremist views would have anything to do with UTK or TR?

Right, so that means you do agree that Anders Breivik was far right? But Anders Breivik did have "something to do with" the EDL. People who were in positions of power within the EFL, had "something to do with Breivik" and "Something to do with Robinson". And some of those people went on to praise what Breivik had done. And Robinson praised his theory. But people like Breivik, and those that support him would have "nothing to do with Robinson". Heavenforefend.

His supporters also did literally firebomb a mosque and a gurdwara at a previous rally. I think @JamieCannister wants people to believe that no one who attended his many former rallies (riots) attended this one. A completely new crowd apparently!

Looking at interviews I.actually do think there were people there who probably didn't agree with the whole ideology of ten name Tommy and his friends. The clapping after Musk's little speech seemed a bit... confused. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part? But I think it was advertised in a way to draw as wide a crowd as possible. I still wouldn't go on a march headed by someone like that. I definitely wouldn't pose for photos beside him as part of his inner circle. But I think they are creating as messy a situation as possible because that feeds the monster and the more they can make criticism targeted towards Robinson be seen to stick to "ordinary fed up people" the more they make those people feel unfairly maligned by the mainstream.

Some of the people on the march were definitely thugs. And some had very extreme views for sure. Maybe quite a lot. It's hard to differentiate who thinks what and that's deliberate.

All I want is -

(1) People to stop using the hard right / fascist label willy-nilly because it is becoming more meaningless by the day and no-one is afraid of being called it any more, which can only fuel the rise of the right and the far right.

(2) National unity with shared values (Open borders, Sharia law, an end to free speech, two tier justice and hatred of jews and love of Hamas will never be the basis of national unity, )

This ⬆️
I'd add as part of shared values- a commitment to a secular democracy.

I think complete seperation between church and state would be controversial. It would mean getting rid of Bishops.in the house of lords for example. They weren't elected to be there. But then noone in the HoL is either. I think we are overdue HoL reform but it would need to be done well. Also, currently, the head of state is also head of the Church of England. So unless we became a republic or Charles gave up his position of being head of the church, we won't ever be completely secular.

Also, though I don't want religious beliefs interfering with other people's ability to go about their lives, I do think people have a right to practice their own beliefs and have their own faith. eg https://www.gbnews.com/news/media-commentator-caroline-farrow-arrested-by-police-over-gender-twitter-spat/373269. I disagree with quite a lot of Farrow's views on abortion etc. but she has the absolute right to express them.

Likewise I am not Jewish or Muslim or Sikh but the attacks on Jewish or Muslim or Sikh places of worship are despicable (whoever does them) www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/14/uk-neo-nazis-convicted-of-planning-mosque-synagogue-race-war-attack

sikhsangat.org/edl-leader-arrested-in-connection-with-graffiti-attacks-on-sikh-gurdwaras/

Turns out Milli Hill has deleted her account out of embarrassment. 😅

https://x.com/millihill

A secular society guarantees freedom of religion providing practices are within the law e.g. no polygamy even if your religion allows it. No laws against blasphemy. etc.

Agreed
Bigamy is already against the law (and I would not want that changed).

I meant to add there are polyamourous couples in the UK etc. and people living in weird polygamous situations who aren't legally married to each other. I don't think those situations are particularly healthy. But if people aren't legally married there is a limit to which the state can interfere (whether they are Mormon, Muslim, the crayzee couples the guardian features). Or you end up with laws against adultery (as places like Indonesia have) and then you are right back to religious morals having control of other people's lives.

That's the point polygamous marriages conducted in religious settings are not legally recognised.