"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.

Gender ideology, authoritarian forced speech with regards pronouns, hatred of free speech, love of mass immigration, hatred of people flying the union jack or st george's cross are seen as far left ideas.

Antifa / trantifa are far left

I would argue that labour are a centre right party with some insane hard left ideas (similar to how tories are a right wing party with elements within it pushing some hard left ideas).

Other people have continued to lie, and have painted him as a far right monster.

It appears that you read or listened to his various remarks that faced heavy criticism and thought he was "painted" as "far-right".

I get how some are wary of being wrongly called far-right, with the impact of those pushing for the gender identity movement besmirching those pushing back, but did you genuinely read or listened to Kirk's remarks on women/women's rights and considered that label unfair?

Would you say it's more accurate to call him a misogynist, then, given that how he would have his 10-year-old daughter give birth if she were raped and became pregnant, or how he demanded Taylor Swift to "submit" to Travis Kelce and change her last name to his?

Kirk also made unmistakably racist comments: "When discussing crime on his podcast in 2023, he said "prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people". Referring to his opposition to affirmative action and hiring practices to boost diversity, he said on the same podcast a year later: "If I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified."

Let's not forget his blatantly antisemitic comments: "He was also accused of antisemitism in 2023, when he said on his podcast that "Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o (this BBC article only cites a few of his most controversial claims).

Based on his interactions with people he disagreed with, for example Kara Dansky, I see him as a compassionate and reasonable man. That doesn't mean that I agree with him on very much politically, and I think his views on guns were unreasonable, and I don't find myself closely aligned with him theologically. But he was a very different person from Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins, or Trump.

I won't get into Robinson or Hopkins, but Kirk's views were strongly echoed by Trump; one could argue that Trump may or may not actually believe what Kirk has espoused, since he flips-flops on so many things, but he has endorsed Kirk's claims for quite some time.

I can't tell if this is a serious comment.

Keir Starmer is not far-left.

Calling Starmer far-left is as disingenuous as calling those who disagree with the gender identity movement far-right simply because they don't believe humans can't change sex and gender identity doesn't trump natal sex in certain circumstances, like single-sex spaces for women.

No matter your views on Starmer, the UK is not, and never has been, politically or economically far-left.

It is a capitalist mixed economy with a parliamentary system where power swings primarily between centrism, left-leaning centrism and conservatism.

Apologies, that should have been "simply because they don't believe humans can change sex and gender identity trumps natal sex in certain circumstances".

"Spreading your vile lies"?

I don't like jumping to conclusions and calling people trolls, but I really have to ask if you're trolling.

The comments I referenced are not made up. Kirk actually made those remarks, and some of what he said is even more provocative than what I brought up.

I suggest you read what I wrote in its entirety or, if you prefer, look up yourself what he said and why it was so controversial.

"The left are evil"

Why are you even bringing up the "left" here, and calling them "evil"? That has no relevance whatsoever to what I wrote.

What are you implying?

You need to re-read.

You know there was no bullying how? Because that is what you prefer to believe?

The state of public discourse - and political violence - is directly related to the number of people who instantly relabel online bullying as 'robust criticism' when it is perpetrated by one of their tribe.

Being pro free speech means nothing if you are happy to see women trashed because they say things you don't agree with.

I believe the state of public discourse is negatively affected both by "people who instantly re-label online bullying as 'robust criticism' when it is perpetrated by one of their tribe" AND by people who instantly label robust criticism as 'online bullying' when it is perpetrated by someone who is not in their tribe.

I have not followed Milli's threads enough (nor have I seen her DMs of course) so I have no idea whether she was bullied or not.

Based on experience I would expect that it's probably a bit of both - some despicable vile abuse directed towards her is almost inevitable, but I would not be surprised if there was an element of over-reacting in the face of robust criticism as well.

Free speech is one of the most important things we have. The whole point of free speech is that it is impossible to support it without accepting that the end result will be that lots of things will be said that you would rather were not said.

She put targets on 3 women's backs and refused to respond to one of them when they asked why. She also didn't credit her but used an image she took on the day. If Milly cannot respond to the people she directly accuses then she is the bully here.

Exactly, she can dish it out but she can't take it.

I think the one thing I would say for Kirk is that he seemed genuinely committed to the "debate not violence". A lot of that "debate" was very clickbaity - him visiting universities for example and "debating" students generating "Kirk schools leftist", "feminist destroyed" clickbait videos. Because its quite easy to win a debate against 19 year olds. A lot of their arguments are not well formed, some of their positions not though through and idealistic because they are 19! He mostly avoided debating with people on his "level". The one time he did (in the UK I think it was Oxford) he got destroyed. But even though the format of his work wasn't really "civil debate" it was debate not violence. He was just very good at meeting social media algorithms. And even silly clickbaity discourse is arguably better than no discourse.

Contrast that to the time Tommy Robinson made a big show of "inviting" an "Antifa leftist" to one of his events to debate him. The description was something along the lines of "were going to have this idiot on stage". The "Antifa leftist" he invited did actually surprisingly show up. He was beaten up at the entrance and then forcibly ejected. The video (of course it was filmed) was titled along the lines of "Antifa tries to storm our venue and gets what's coming to him". When people hit back with the fact he had invited the guy, Tommy then lied and said he hadn't and actually it was all the fault of a woman on his team who had sent the invite out behind his back because she was secretly Antifa. Said woman was then sacked and went on to receive hate and death threats for years after from Tommy' supporters.

A lot of the "clickbaity" videos SYL puts out are ones where they try to goad various people into confrontation and then film said confrontation or crowd around someone angrily "asking questions". It's just bully behaviour.

That was long. But to summarise Charlie Kirk is probably far right (or right on the line of being far right.) But Tommy is both Far Right and also a right piece of work.

As in all the Muslims shouting 'Allah Akbar' at marches.
You really are wearing blinkers. I don't think you even know what a secular democracy is.
Please don't engage with me again

It's just example after example on this thread that certain posters are so entrenched in a position tat they can't even their blindingly obvious contradictions they post one after the other. The march isn't far right and people not to listen and not lecture yet refuse to engage with any of the evidence that viewpoint ignores, wants a secular society because to them that means shutting down Muslims expressing their faith but are cheering on nationalist chanting Christ is king. Far right has no meaning but will get desperately offended if you call their fave far right. It's a great example of how this division is maintained by these posters by posting their misinformation and refusing to engage in any evidence to the contrary.

You have to live in another reality to see Kier as far left 😂 Policy wise so far he's just been a continuation of the tories a red tie. He's not brought in a single leftish policy let alone far left. He's even constantly pandering to the flag shaggers assuring them he's on their side and you'll still call him far left, do you even watch the news or are you basing your worldview on social media?

I mean we all know KJK can dish it out too, why is it so funny to you the idea that MH "can't take it 😂". Presumably KJK can handle criticism and if she can't that should be equally hilarious you?

wants a secular society because to them that means shutting down Muslims expressing their faith but are cheering on nationalist chanting Christ is king.

You don't even begin to understand my views. In a secular society people are free to express their religion within the law. People are also free to challenge and criticise and ridicule their beliefs.
There are no blasphemy laws in this country. They were repealed in my lifetime. And yet a Labour Party wants to introduce a concept of Islamophobia, against the advice of Tell Mama I might add. Freedom of speech matters.
You might be wanting to pick a fight but I'm bored.

Can I just make a statement.
The issue is not whether someone is far right, far left, floating in mid air. What matters is what they are saying (stripped of rhetoric and slogans), how have they come to that conclusion, where's the evidence and most important do they have a point.
Thankyou.

We are not talking about KJK.

And why did you add a smiley face to your 'quote'?

Huh? You didn't wanna engage so I didn't quote you. I don't need you to explain what a secular society is thanks, I understand it hence why I'm actually concerned that the nationalists who will be voting in who will likely be out ect government are shouting "Christ is king"

There are no blasphemy laws in this country. They were repealed in my lifetime. And yet a Labour Party wants to introduce a concept of Islamophobia, against the advice of Tell Mama I might add. Freedom of speech matters.
You might be wanting to pick a fight but I'm bored.
Huh? Who said there was blasphemy laws? Whatever definition of Islamophobia hasn't even been announced yet or even if they're going to change the definition and you're likening it to a blasphemy law. I wonder if you had this uninformed overreaction when the government adopted a new definition of antisemitism or you save your lack of critical thinking only when Islam is the subject. Just utter world salad again.
As I said, you don't wanna engage in any actual facts or any critical evidence to what you post so please please do continue to not engage as your promised, you added nothing in your response here and I didn't quote you 👋🏿

I was combining the sentiment of PPs previous post laughing at her deleting a long with her follow up about people not being able to take it. And surely principal applies to everyone. Who is we also? I wasn't replying to you so we aren't talking about anything.

The article was written with a point of view that the march was connected to far right and extremism and wanting women's rights campaigners to distance themselves from TR etc. it was based on the documented evidence of TR being far right and that we know from previous events of his that many in attendance don't care about the safety of women and girls and a large proportion actually have prior convictions for assaulting women and girls. None of that is slogans or rhetoric forming that opinion, it's TRs and the usual marches histories as well the selection of speakers for the match. So it has evidence and a point, both of which could be debated but instead just rubbished by several posters with the response basically being a bunch of slogans and rhetoric about free speech or the purpose of the march which are then dropped in the face of any conflicting evidence. It's not looking like critique of the article has any evidence or any real point after all these pages.

I would say there is a second issue, and this is something I am rapidly realizing in recent months.

I am increasingly not judging people based on how similar their beliefs are to mine... I am judging based on whether or not they are willing to converse or debate politely, and what I perceive their intentions are. If someone (however stupid or ignorant I might perceive them to be) is willing to try to explain their beliefs, justify their beliefs, and listen to the other side then they are a good person. More so if I trust their motivations.

On the other hand even if someone seems to broadly share my views in terms of progressive politics and centre-left economics, if they are going to just throw around "far right" insults, judge people based on who else was at the same protest or who stood on some steps nearby seig heilling, or by reference to which organisation they joined aged 18 over two decades ago, then I am not interested.

At the moment the right seems much more willing to converse.

Can I ask, if you're so willing to converse, you have spent this thread posting the most random misinformation and then refusing to engage in any counter evidence? I mean you're still doing so, so it's obviously just your agenda, but do you not see how transparent it is that you're either deliberately posting misinformation or you're genuinely so entrenched in your opinions that you can't even engage in discussion about anything that counters what you've already decided?

What random misinformation have I posted?

I do not regard what political party TR joined 20 years ago or the fact he got done for fraud to be particularly useful evidence in terms of what he believes today and what the 150k (or more) people at the protest believe.

We have a divided country - that is the one thing we can agree on surely? How does a debate about TRs history help? Do you think that you're going to be able to convince people that their perception that immigration is too high, too many illegal immigrants are committing sex crimes and free speech is under attack by pointing out that Robinson must be a fascist because of the party he joined 20 years ago?

I note the refusal of some on this thread (maybe you, maybe not) to consider looking at the citizen journalist footage which (IMHO) shows that the crowd were mainly ordinary people (jncluding lots of women, some kids, some ethnic minorities) smiling and putting forward a positive vision for britian based on shared values based on our christian hisory and liberal democracy.

If you are quoting someone then anything that is your interpretation should not be in the quote.

You said 'we all know KJK can take it' but we are not all talking about KJK, indeed I was talking about someone else named in Milli's little essay.

I mean where to start? Every reply of you're that got a response with counter evidence you moved past without engaging with the evidence.

We could start with TR not being far right and that this was an unfounded accusation. I mean you're still spouting rubbish about "20 years ago" as though he isn't still active in a far right political space

No one at the march was far right or could have even known it was a far right match despite the speakers and the content of their speakers and the presence of far right supporters loudly singing NF etc

That the attendees of the march couldn't be racist or far right because of the presence of a Black man and then ignored the thoughtful replies you got about this

That there are people who believe in bombing mosques and white supremacy but none of these would be on the TR march despite the fact that previous attendees at this previous march did in fact bomb a mosque

And that's just a few. We absolutely agree the country is divided and I state previously what would help unite it is to stop amplifying agitators such as TR that seek only to sow division and will spread fake news and rumours about the groups they're demonising in order to create that division. I also said that I think that division would dissipate if our government addresses the actual concerns people have through stopping austerity. Peoples frustration about their lack of access to GPs, the state of their local community, and the general economic hardship they live under is being directed towards immigration etc when we know, factually, these issues can be resolved and have nothing to do with immigration. Likewise we are living through a femicide and peoples genuine concerns about th safety of women and girls is being weaponised against immigrants. I truly believe if we addressed the actual issues that dissatisfaction about immigration would go down because TR and his ilk that have a problem with immigration because of their far right nationalist views won't have the frustrations they can take and point to and pretend can be solved by attacking multiculturalism.

smiling and putting forward a positive vision for britian based on shared values based on our christian hisory and liberal democracy.
And again you post these vague ideas of what the march was about but there's nothing concrete to back it up or what is even meant by shared values? Is that advertised somewhere you can show us? Otherwise we have the actual data of who organised the march, what it's previous iterations were for and who attended, and what the speakers spoke about as the purpose for the event. I'm just not buying this whole "oh it's just about British values" which is giving the same faux ignorance as people hanging up flags "oh it's just a flag, it has no meaning" as though we can't see them on social media discussing what the flags actually "mean".

I think if you're going to shut down any criticism of the perception of this march (which you did very confidently) you need to provide logical reasoning and then engage with evidence on the points you bring up.