"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.

I don't know who you were talking about because I didn't reply to whatever you've posted / haven't read your posts.

They introduced the renters rights bill and they did introduce more rights for workers. Hardly Karl Marx though. But given the choice between taxing the wealthy and slashing the welfare bill they were never going to take the left path.

Its not that Labour are perfect. Or even, more generally that the left are. But the idea that the "far left" are/have been in control and need an Elon Musk led uprising to depose is fantasy. Its also a good way to, ironically, sow further division by labelling whole groups "leftists" or "dangerous leftists". And yes, there have been cases of people on the left saying the same about the right. More so in the US but also in the UK. Its a step further than people demonising opposing politicians/political parties. Elon Musk went further still by implying that this large group of "leftists" within the UK wished "ordinary people" violence. It's full on enemy of the people narrative. And very ironically the same people solemnly lecturing on here that "you shouldn't demonise people on the right" (I agree) can't see the problem in Elon Musk's statement. The projection is huge.

Exactly that's the one left leaning piece of legislation they've introduced and even then they've continued with policies that mean more towards austerity and continuing conservative policies. The idea Starmer is far-left at all is pure fantasy and repeating is as a tangible threat and that people need to be prepared to get violent in response to it is dangerous and extreme as hell.

In my view we have a right wing, but not hard right Tory party (with elements of hard left woke ideology such as gender ideology)

Labour are a centre right (they are not interested in redistribution so they cannot be centre left let alone left) party (with much larger elements of hard left woke ideology such as gender ideology).

In my view the sorts of people who were at the UTK march are probably a mixture mainly somewhere in the range of Tory to centre left (to the left of labour in other words) in economic terms but very much opposed to hard left woke / CSJ / hate the jews / love hamas / TQ+ / BLM ideas.

Labour and the Tories are both hated because they have both failed on the economy and they have both allowed more immigration than people want (40% to 70% of the country thereabouts think immigration is too high or much too high) and they have both pushed hard left ideas to varying degrees (but not hard left ideas which might increase equality). The hard left might not be in power, but tell that to Sandie Peggie or the Darlington nurses - from their perspective, and anyone who supports them, the hard left have far too much power.

Have you ever observed a hard left pro palestine march or trans march or antifa anti-racism march. Lots and lots of aggressive masked males, lots of aggressive banging and chanting, NOTHING in the way of attempt to talk debate or persuade. These people do seem to genuinely believe that if you don't hate jews and israel and don't think some men are actually women, then you are truly evil, and truly evil people do not deserve to feel or be safe.

Musk in an idiot, a proper idiot, but he does know a bit about free speech and isn't wrong on everything.

I mean this seems very balanced and reasonable:

To me the extreme right wing is as abhorrent as the extreme left, embodied by the appalling comments about Charlie Kirk from rapper Bob Vylan, and from the Oxford Union president George Abaraonye. I won’t repeat their words but they are well documented online.
Nobody should celebrate or call for another human’s death. I want no part of this dehumanising extremism from the left, either. It has just the same energy as Elon Musk who spoke at Robinson’s rally and said that ‘violence is coming’ and ‘you fight back or you die’.

I think that some people when referring to the "hard left" actually mean identity politics based stuff, which in some circles seems to be a replacement for traditional economic ideas about Marxism.

So, like the Democrats in the US, you don't so much on serious class issues, but instead you try and create redistribution of wealth and "privileged" along the lines of race, sexuality, etc.

Starmer gets branded with it not so much because of his own views - who knows what they are - but because he gave way to it, stuff like "taking a knee" at a sports match, or especially he allowed GI to continue to flourish in his party, in the civil service, in the medical and legal and justice systems, and universities.

Exactly. It comes via Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony and cultural Marxism and postmodernism.

I think that is what people mean. But to make the argument that this is evidence of "hard left" you have to argue:

• trans rights/hyper identity politics is a left wing ideology because people on the left express it
• because people on the right and in the middle have also fallen prey to this (eg the Conservatives intending to update the GRA) that proves the right have also been "infiltrated" by the left. It's a logical fallacy.

I agree that hyper identity politics is damaging. Ironically, the ideology pushed by SYL is also identity politics. It's a very extreme form of identity politics. (There's a word for that.)

Even more regular people on the right are happy to use "identity politics" when it suited them. Eg Konstantin Kisin is a big critic, but will also talk about how being an immigrant,.and his family having experienced communism gives him a "unique perspective". He refers to this a LOT. He also (less reasonably IMO) thinks Rishi Sunk can't be English. That's identity politics. And everyone left/right refers to their identity. Even on here - the idea that as women or "as mothers" we have a specific perspective on issues or are affected by them in certain ways. And we DO! You can't get rid of "identity politics" entirely because then, ironically, it would be a lot harder to argue that women need seperate spaces to men etc. Its extreme identity politics that is unhealthy.

Elon Musk's argument is basically "I disagree with the left. I disagree with that, therefore it's the left. There are so many bad things on the left they must be evil. Aaargh, there's a massive evil leftwing global conspiracy of things I don't like".

I don't think that is necessary. It's the purpose, how the phenomenon is used.
The left are seeking to create their version of a good society using theories like Critical Race theory.
They do this by subverting the supposed current hegemony towards their goals. It's the authoritarian means they are using- attacks on freedom of speech etc.
This a bit garbled - I've got to go out I'm late now¡

Very interesting.

I think I have to say I am completely on the fence.

Trans rights/hyper identity politics IS a left wing ideology because people on the left express it, but it has also infiltrated the right because some of it's individualism / do exactly what you want with no concern for others or wider society ideas fit perfectly with the right so some on the right have adopted this left wing ideology blindly.

On the other hand trans rights/hyper identity politics IS very individualistic in very right wing way, and I cannot think of a better way for the right to "win" that to come up with a selfish individualistic identity based ideology and sell it to the left as a replacement for their class based analysis used to justify greater economic equality. The only mistake the right made was when some of them completely messed up and adopted this poison themselves.

Ideas, idology and life can be complex sometimes.

I disagree with your point on Kisen. I think that identity politics is about political groupings based on identity. Using one's personal experience to educated others about something important that they never lived through is not identity politics.

I'm not sure why you would think that's a logical fallacy. It might be factually incorrect but it certainly isn't a logical fallacy, both those things are possible which would not be the case if they fell outside of the rules of logic.

In any case, we wouldn't have to suppose that the right had been "infiltrated" we would only need to think that in modern liberal democracies, political parties are not always so perfectly divided. That is in fact clearly the case, right and left have significant overlap, both parties today are arguably dominated by liberalism in significant ways, and typically special interest groups will target both sides of the political aisle.

I think it's quite clear that identity politics comes out of the left and a kind of adapted marxism, if you cared to you could read through the texts and thinkers that generated that thinking through the 20th century. There is a reason the right tended to resist, and were able to back out when they realised they'd been caught short with id pol, while leftist ideologues still can't let it go, even if they bring the whole left down with them.

Yes, having an experience in common with others is not identity politics.

I don't think it's evidenced however that the right somehow sold the left an ideology that they'd come up with to bamboozle them.

Id politics was created by the left, there is a whole edifice of left academics who have been writing about this shit for decades. You can read them, or the more traditional Marxists like Adolph Reed, who have opposed them and their sloppy methods, for decades. Not just in GI, but perhaps even more fundamentally in what they like to call antiracism, which is in fact a kind of reductive race essentialism.

Critical Race theory isn't really how it's portrayed. It's valid in some specific circumstances but it's a bit too "academic intellectual navel gazing" for me. It's not the same as the "don't be racist" type things they teach in American schools. It's just that some on the American right use "critical race theory" as a catch all term. There IS a really unhelpful extreme take on anti-fascism that veers back into racism. The "white people are inherently bad." But also sometimes more nuanced viewpoints are mischaracterised as this (the north Atlantic slave trade is talked about more in UK education than say the slave trade of the ancient mesopotamians because it is specifically our history). It's not because we are being taught to hate our culture. I care more about racism in the UK than I do in say Japan or Russia.

"Black women suffer from racism and mysogyny" is true. Saying we should do something about that is arguably a form of "identity politics"
"White working class boys are disadvantaged under the current education system" is also true. Saying we should do something about that is a form of "identity politics".

Both of those types of "identity politics" are acceptable. What isn't is "white power" or the UK is under attack from Islam. They are extreme manifestations of identity. They are also untrue and obscure the real issues. (White working class boys problems aren't caused principally by Muslims, or feminism etc)

Gramsci thought that cultural hegemony was a tool of capitalism/the ruling class (he was against it)

In Gramsci's view, the bourgeoisie develops a hegemonic culture using ideology rather than violence, economic force, or coercion

The idea was that an counter hegemony needed to be created by the working class
, as part of the war of position, the organic intellectuals and others within the working-class, need to develop alternative values and an alternative ideology in contrast to bourgeois ideology

But pretty central is that it's created by the proletariat/working class. The idea that the "liberal-left elite" have created the current culture is basically the opposite to a counter hegemony. A Gramsci interpretation of the current issues is that they are another example of the capitalist ruling class setting the hegemony.

I don't think that Gramsci is that relevant though, because actually like @TempestTost says, lots of ideas overlap on the left and right. Arguments about free speech versus hate speech, identity are cross party. So I don't think that it's a case of "right wing ideas infiltrating the left" or "left wing ideas infiltrating the right" in these cases..it's ideas/bugbears that are shared. Also the more extreme ideas about trans etc aren't a hegemony - more people disagree with them than agree and they are extremely divisive. So arguably Gramsci is out of date.

I think the real problem is nothing is like it's portrayed. Ideas once let loose have a life of their own. Yes Critical Race Theory is a mix of rational and unconvincing arguments but Academia encourages hype rather than caution (the hype cycle).

My problem with the way history is being taught is that's being taught through a particular ideological lens. In the last century there was a needed reset in publishing and awareness raising. Today we have the excessive thought control of sensitivity readers.The little girl who was sent home for wearing a Union Jack flag is a sympton of this overcorrection

I totally disagree with your last statement. Nobody is talking about 'White Power' that is your projection. People are talking about the improper unfair and illegal use of positive discrimination. They are black people reacting to being called 'coconuts.' They are sick of having their language policed and being called racist.

It is perfectly acceptable (even necessary) to talk about the threat to this country from Islamist extremism, just as it is to talk about the threats from Russia and China. This is not blind prejudice but the results of terrorist attacks across the Western world. Appalling attacks on individuals like Salman Rushdie are also identity politics; loyalty to your identity group rather than the laws and values of your country.

I am not as well read as I should be, and I come at it partly devil's advocate (as a lifelong leftist I see TQ+ as pretty damn right wing, so I am going to say that's what it is whatever the truth) and partly occam's razor (when I look at TQ+ and id pol more widely It seems to me to make more sense that it was made up by the right to make the left look stupid and immoral and destroy them, than it does that someone with a left wing brain could abandon class analysis and come up with such individualistic nonsense!)

But you are right... it comes from the left

Sorry previous post was a response to

@persephonia

I chose "white power" deliberately as an example of a very extreme belief held by a minority.

Yes. Islamic extremism could also be characterised as including "Identity Politics". It's loyalty to your group..it is still extremism even though (as with ISIS) it focuses on religion as the identity not race. Christian Nationalism is the same thing from a different angle. As is Buddhist nationalism. They are not only identity politics - they include other elements that overall make them far right or extremist ideologies.

All three of those things have sparked severe violence. 2 of them have led to horrific terrorist attacks in the West. That doesn't mean that Christians or Muslims are inherently dangerous. Even when people have inspired or supported the ideology of violent Christian Supremacist terrorists they have not been arrested for it. That's because they haven't broken the law by doing so. It's deeply uncomfortable but that's the price we pay. (However, despite having their free speech protected those extremists will still complain they are victims of oppression. That's what extremists do.) I think nonviolent Muslim extremism is if anything controlled more tightly actually than other types of extremism in this country. That's probably a legacy of things like Salmon Rushdie/Finsbury Park Mosque. But even within that category there will still be people allowed to say unpleasant things that aren't against the law.

I think lots of people (across the political spectrum) came out and said the girl being sent home for wearing the dress was wrong. It was a very misguided decision by the school. I also think that it was deliberately inflated into a massive issue by people that were looking for a sign/a specific outrage to rally around. It was wrong, but the fact this was the example chosen suggests actually that things aren't so oppressive in this country, or there would be much worse examples of oppression of white/UK culture to choose from.
You aren't hearing about all the "celebrate your culture" days where nothing went wrong and noone was discriminated against. The one time it happened, the school was forced to apologise.

Our school celebrated VE day with flags. No SJW Warriors attacked. https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2025/05/how-can-schools-celebrate-ve-day-and-what-resources-are-available/

persephonia

"I think lots of people (across the political spectrum) came out and said the girl being sent home for wearing the dress was wrong." Assuming you are true then, IMHO, that makes things worse. It would be better if the people pushing an anti-white narrative on the left had the decency to apologise for the fact it was their fault it happened, as opposed to pretending to care.

Also you mentioned the slave trade earlier. IMHO there are only two things that kids really need to know about slavery (although obviously I support much wider knowledge including Britains despicable role in the N. Atlantic slave trade) - it was once ubiquitous across pretty much everywhere, and - if it ever was ended - it was Britain that played the biggest role in ending it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/z2qj6sg

deleted

I see Mumsnet S&G is having a pikachu moment again, which will inevitably get hit by cognitive dissonance and ignored again.

I repeat what Butler said: [GCs] "“will not be part of the contemporary struggle against fascism"

If you're happy with associating yourself with an eliminationist movement for one group of people, then..and this may come as a shock..you'll likely 'fall in line' to be part of another.

Also, there was another study showing up another GC lie on trans youth, but guess I'll post that as a new thread so people can dither and 'yes, but' like when I asked about those 1000 families (that don't exist).

Mate, the gents is over there.

Well I'm afraid Buddhist Nationalism doesn't keep me awake at nightmuch as I dislike it. They're not engaged in the Western obsession
with identity politics though so I cant see the relevance.

I know not all Muslims are terrorists, that is just a way of trying to
discredit someone instead of addressing the actual issue. I really don't know what you're trying to say. Muslims have the same rights to freedom of speech as everyone else.

That's probably a legacy of things like Salmon Rushdie/Finsbury Park Mosque. But even within that category there will still be people allowed to say unpleasant things that aren't against the law.

You seem to have a cavalier attitude to violence . Salman Rushdie spent 10 years in hiding only to be stabbed 2 years ago. And all for writing a book. I suppose burning an author is one up on burning a book.
And despite living in a country that allows freedom of religion and speech they still threaten violence while calling themselves victims of Islamophobia.

The silent majority of Muslims shouldn’t be blamed for these people; they are instead victims of radical Islam themselves. We need to support them not the extremists but after all the Gaza marches and antisemitism on full display it's becoming a bit more like an act of faith. I keep in mind all the decent Muslims I've known.