"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 dont. I think the Salmon Rushdie case could have been handled a lot better. For one thing there was a reluctance on the part of the British establishment to stand up for him for example. There was a feeling in the British press originally he had brought it on himself and in retrospect that was wrong. But the people preaching violence in Iran were hard to deal with. I didn't say you said all Muslims were terrorists.

This
And despite living in a country that allows freedom of religion and speech they still threaten violence while calling themselves victims of Islamophobia

Would you also apply that to far right agitators who have also inspired extremely violent terrorist attacks and glorified the words/ideology of the people that did so?

It's against the law to threaten violence. People do go to prison for this. People that don't explicitly threaten violence but veer close to it and preach the same extreme ideas should, in my idea, be watched very closely and their words condemned/pushed back on by the mainstream. It shouldn't be that difficult to create an ideological firewall around them.

That's where my line is.

(by original I mean in the eighties. I think there was a real failure then to express why he deserved to be kept safe and to stamp down firmly on people that suggested otherwise.)

A quick google (I do not claim stats are 100%, but they are the first thing I could find and I believe them to be a reasonable guide)...

Muslims make up 6.5% of the population. Islamism is the motivation for 67% of UK terror attacks. I will assume Islamist terrorist attacks are committed by muslims.

This means an average Muslim is ten times more likely to be responsible for terrorism than you would expect on average from a UK citizen. And of course this works in reverse. Non-muslims are about a third as likely to be responsible for terrorism than you would expect on average from a UK citizen.

Combined this means that If you are standing next to a muslim and a non-muslim in the UK the muslim is 30 times more likely to be a terrorist than the non-muslim. (Of course, the risk of the muslim standing next to you being a terrorist is TINY, incredibly small).

I believe that morality suggests we should try to combat hard right extremism and racism (where it exists).

I believe that the mainstream politics and media "let's pretend all cultures are equal, let's pretend there are no specific issues with islamic terrorism, FGM, forced marriage, cousin marriage / disabled kids, women's and gay rights under islam" approach to combatting the rise of the hard right has failed.

I believe that anyone sticking with the old "fingers in the ears" approach is effectively saying that they'd rather virtue signal that they're definitelu not racist than do anything to stop ringht wing extremists.

I believe that the only way we can change the direction of this country and move back towards the progressive centre left society I want is to be honest about cultures, religions, immigration etc etc and come up with polices which are not extreme, but deal with the issues people want dealing with, so they don;t need to turn to the hard right.

At the rate we are going Farage is at risk of winning in 2029... and if that happens my money would be that he utterly fails due to corruption, grifting and iincompetence rife through his entire party, and the next swing would be even further right.

Would you also apply that to far right agitators who have also inspired extremely violent terrorist attacks and glorified the words/ideology of the people that did so?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, it's vague how 'inspired' why just far right?

There's a legal test and it should apply to everyone equally. Following Charlie Kirk's death there's been some awful tweets- one saying they should kill them all. She was given 'advice' by the police not arrested.

On S. Rushdie

Khomeni was notified about the book by some British Muslims. I had to evacuate a public library after bomb threats. The Muslims I knew and worked with thought they were nutters. As a librarian free speech is close to my heart.
There have been other attacks and threats recently, the Batley teacher still in hiding for one. A Muslim MP asked in parliament for the desecration of religious books to be criminalised.

This article shows the geo political manoeuvres going on at the time.
The longest-lasting legacy of the fatwa has been as a symbol of the threat to free speech – considered a fundamental right in the west. At the time, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was clear on this: “It is an essential part of our democratic system that people who act within the law should be able to express their opinions freely”. Several other writers and translators with links to Rushdie have been attacked or killed over the years.

But for some in the Muslim world, freedom of speech should not give licence to attack the fundamentals of faith. It is because of this that the fatwa and its aftermath have also had a lasting impact on migrant identities in the the UK and Europe.

Salman Rushdie attack: the legacy of the decades-old fatwa on the author, explained | The Political Studies Association (PSA) share.google/P68CB22AGbGWnYR6g

Margaret Thatcher was actually excellent, and I say this as someone who is not a fan of her generally! I was thinking more broadly of the UK press and other figures. Rushdie also mentions this in "Knife".

The far right agitator I was thinking of was SYL. The violent attack was the one in Norway - the worst attrocity in Norway since WW2.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/edl-tommy-robinson-breivik-far-right-361765
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/484833.html

I think you thought when I talked about extremist rhetoric against Muslims I was straw Manning/misrepresenting your own beliefs/attitudes. I was not, i was talking about SYL specifically. I think we need an open dialogue and a wide range of ideas including uncomfortable ones. But I also think it's dangerous/unhelpful to downplay the most extreme versions of these ideas, or ideas which demonise entire groups of people. Milli Hill seems to share this opinion which is why she emphasized her own distance from SYL and people in his circle. That's the starting point for this whole discussion. (I actually wouldn't necessarily exclude people but their ideas. That's another conversation).
I suspect my describing SYL as far right is going to trigger another wave of "how dare you smear everyone on the march as far right" (I don't) or "SYL is not far right". So I will withdraw from this thread now as I've said all I wanted.and we've been going round in circles.

I think Robinson could be accurately described as far right, though I suppose it's also possible he's moderated his views over the years. He's not always very clear about all his views I suspect. And some of that may be because he isn't really a very systematic or clear thinker

It's become tricky too because far right is now a mushy concept. Anyone wanting to justify such a claim needs to be pretty specific.

But I also would say most regular people don't really care much about Tommy Robinson. Or Elon Musk for that matter. Almost everyone thinks Musk is kind of weird and unstable.

I've asked this before - how many people on the left refused to go on BLM marches because of the background and beliefs of their leaders, or expected other people on the left to avoid them to avoid being called out? No one ever seems to answer though.

Nobody blinks an eye when marches supported by the left permit extremist elements to join or even when those marches are organised by extremists. It's a real double standard. Even the KJK event where the Neo Nazis turned up nobody (who was critical of her) seemed remotely bothered that there were a load of Bolshevik flags waving within in the counter demo. Nobody seems to care that the organisers of some of the Pro Palestine marches have extremist or terrorist links. I think Milli's article would have been more interesting and more honest if she had explored what she means when she says she wants no part of extremism "right or left" by looking at equivalent marches with extremist elements and working out if she actually feels the same way about it then.

I've asked this before - how many people on the left refused to go on BLM marches because of the background and beliefs of their leaders, or expected other people on the left to avoid them to avoid being called out? No one ever seems to answer though.

That's the main reason why I often mention the SWP, who seem to have a corner on organising "anti-racism" and particularly anti-Robinson activities in the UK. Actually I suspect lots of people quietly decide not to go to a march if they spot a strong SWP influence. But what I never see is the callouts where people expect other people on the left to avoid them, or where criticisms are raised of the unions funding them, or Labour MPs and union leaders appearing on their platforms.

I think there's an unexpressed feeling that it would be bad form to do those callouts, because they might be rapey but they're organising for a "good cause". Left wing tribalism is a hell of a drug.

As far as the UTK march goes, I come back to this point - we know from polling that Robinson is not at all popular, and we know from previous UTK marches roughly how many people will turn out for his events. It's important to explain why, much to Robinson's own surprise, five times as many as usual turned out for this one.

It seems to me there are a few contributory factors. There's the deepening crisis of an extremely unpopular Labour government. There's the continued high salience of the immigration issue with the hotel protests over the summer. And I suspect though I don't know for certain that the free speech angle was a big factor - I think there were probably people there who were thinking of Charlie Kirk and/or Glinner.

Those are all factors that something could be done to address. But I think for some people - not just left wing tribalists but centrist pundits too - the idea that these factors are feeding in is more disconcerting than the narrative they're pushing of the great unwashed turning to fascism.

See also US Democrats who would rather spin fantasies about Trump turning into Hitler - after 10 years, I think many of them want him to turn into Hitler and and frustrated that he won't - because it's easier than asking why they're unpopular and out of touch.

Those scenes in Oz forced me to ask a fairly simple question... why is it that antifa are so obsessed with abusing women and ending women's rights that they are literally willing to ignore literal goose-stepping, seig heilling fascists in order to keep abusing women?

Either they knew the "fasists" were antifa there to discredit KJK amongst idiots who think she can control who comes along and stands near here, or antifa hate women more than they hate fascists.

One might argue that the only reason that extremist ideologies like antifa / TQ+ etc have taken hold is because of the MSM and people like Milli Hill failing to take account of the fact that whilst their might aways be two sides that does not mean the truth is anywhere near the middle.

I think that the perception that free speech is under attack and that there is two-tier justice, and the general feeling that the government is not listening to ordianry people at all, is as important as any anti mass immigration / anti Islamism sentiment.

And the other factor, genuinely massive, is the lack of any patriotism and feel good factor in the UK today. People aren't harking back to the days of Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, they're wanting to see a positive sense of national unity and pride like they enjoyed in the swinging sixties or the Britpop era.

The only thing that I would add is that - and I genuinely belive this - Trump, and Farage for that matter were he PM, would both be happy to declare a national emergency and postpone elections indefinitely if they thought they could get away with it, and continue the grift, without massive pushback.

Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I'm not sure one can be too careful when it comes to people with massive power who have some fascist tendencies (even if there is still far too little evidence to suggest they are actual fascists). If my suspicions are right and Trump and Farage do have significant fascist tendencies, then I would argue that we are at risk of missing it because one side is 100% pro-Trump, the other side is 100% anti him, and no-one is sitting in the middle saying "there are concerns that need close monitoring, but let's not lay it on too thick - there is no hard evidence of literal fascism yet"

@JamieCannister "and no-one is sitting in the middle saying "there are concerns that need close monitoring, but let's not lay it on too thick - there is no hard evidence of literal fascism yet"

when you say no one, you mean no politicians and no media I'm guessing

Because I would imagine most of us are quite centrist in many ways and probably believe that bit that I've just highlighted

There are some totally bizarre statements on here. If anyone believes half of what they read here, they would've gone absolutely mad by now. I suppose for the sort of person who gets their information from social media, it's problematic.

When I said "no-one" I was obviously exagerating... I think that the problem is that much of the media, and much of the vocal public, is quite tribal, and the one tribe thinks Trump and Farage are great and the other thinks they are literal fascists.

Perhaps when I said "no-one" I meant "no-one apart from the silent majority who get ignored"? In the cut and thrust of public debate we seem to have a lot of people at the extremes, and I believe both extremes are equally dangerous, whether one is "crying wolf" (cracking down on illegal immigration as the people who voted for you wanted is not extreme or fascist) or "blindly following" (surely you have to be naive not to consider that if Trump saw a pathway he wouldn't engineer a third term or postpone an election or seek to bend the law to maximize the chance of the next president being his son)?

I totally agree that those comments were abhorrent. I think though, describing him as far left is just another example based not anywhere in reality. As far I know, Bob Vylan is a band, theyr Wikipedia shows that politically they have been vocal about race and Palestine - are those inherently far left? Is someone in a band inherently part of a political side that we can name far left? I feel there's a lot of lazy labelling going on. We have people who are part of noted far right groups and supporting particular political policies that are right wing / far right, and yet the examples brought up of the equivalent "far left" seems to be random individuals such as Vylan who as far as I can see online isn't affiliated with a particular policy movement or groups. Unless I'm missing something? I can't see any evidence to equate actual political groups and activists with random individuals who may be left or right leaning. I'm not saying far left can't exist but I haven't seen anyone bring up an actual political party or equivalent that we are seeing on the far right.

cracking down on illegal immigration as the people who voted for you wanted is not extreme or fascist

It absolutely be, and is, when the propagators of the "illegal immigration" narrative are painting groups of immigrants as illegal when they aren't. Concern about illegal immigration is a legitimate concern, however TR and NF and countless others online either don't understand counts and illegally immigrant or they're pretending not to. Refugees in hotels awaiting their asylum application to be processed aren't illegal. Mixed with these groups starting to blend discussions of illegal immigrants with foreign nationals, you now have part of the country using the words "deport foreign nationals" who clearly a,don't even know what that means and b, don't realise that is extreme.

I was referring to Trump in the US, the person elected to crack down on illegal immigration. Not TR and NF who have never been elected to do that.

Concern about legal immigration numbers is also a legitimate concern. Concern about immigrants who send money home (taking money out of the economy) is a legitimate concern. Concern about islamism is a legitimate concern. Concern about the burden on the NHS of the kids of pakistani cousin marriage is a legitimate concern.

Besides which, telling people that they are thick racists whose concerns are illigitimate and that they are muppets for thinking people on boats who didn't seek asylum in the first safe coutry they got to are illegal is not a winning strategy.

I am not sure what your position is beyond (I presume) "we need immigration and we need to be open to provide a safe haven for asylum seekers. I think NF and TR are racist and extremist, and I hate racism and extremism. I think our immigration system and numbers of immigrants is broadly OK." Is that your position and would you agree that it is broadly speaking a labour / lib dem / green position?

I actually outlined my position when I responded to all your points that were unfactual, you could go back to what I said there instead of repeatedly using your imagination and asking further questions before you answer any that have been put to you. I laid out exactly what most people's concerns are. None of these crowds of people want immigration to stop or be lowered and still live under austerity with public services broken. TR and Farage are directing people's legitimate frustrations towards and ineffective solution and misclassifying legal immigrants as illegal. If the actual concerns of people were addressed very few people would have a problem with asylum seekers. Even the rage at people being housed in hotels is 100% a result of austerity and the decline in applications being quickly processed so people can either be granted asylum and have the right to work or be denied the right to stay and be deported. Your posts perfectly illustrate how the narrative of blaming everything on immigration relies on people refusing to engage with any concrete evidence on the subject.

So your position is that people's real concerns are jobs and living standards and housing, and that if you sorted all that out then there would be no concerns about cultural change, islamism or the sheer numbers of immigrants in certain areas?

I think you are making two fundamental mistakes.

For one, you're underestimating the amount of people who have concerns about cultural change, islamism or the sheer numbers of immigrants in certain areas, building on the green belt, ugly blocks of flats going up in their towns etc etc. And things like the right to free speech including the right to hate and mock and belittle, including all ideas and beliefs, not least imported ones (but not to threaten or incite).

For two you think that we can address people's real concerns around jobs and living standards and housing, and use the standard of living improvement to placate people. I genuinely don't believe we can turn around the economy and living standards without a fundamental re-set which involves a mobile global elite and global corporates not least in tech paying their fair share of tax in the UK going forward AND paying some sort of one-off super-tax to make up for how little they have paid for so long. And I can't see that re-set happening. I don't believe there is any chance in the short to mid term of a significant boost in living standards.

So, you're only half recognizing why people have a problem with immigration, and then proposing an unrealistic solution that simply isn't going to happen. In my view you are basically following the mainstream political narrative for years, the one that has continued whilst Reform build a massive lead in the polls. In my view by continuing your narrative you are effectively doing nothing other than watch FArage take power in 2029, and I have no doubt at all that he'd be a disaster for this country overall (and I'm not sure I'd even bet on him making any significant difference to the immigration other than by removing the NHS as a draw to immigrants by destroying it).

You said "Your posts perfectly illustrate how the narrative of blaming everything on immigration relies on people refusing to engage with any concrete evidence on the subject."

I think we are getting to the heart of the matter. You acknowledge that "people [are] refusing to engage with any concrete evidence on the subject." Yet you seem to think that the way to change these people's minds is to give them concrete evidence and call them racist if they refuse to listen or stupid if they listen to NF instead. How's that strategy working out for you?

I believe that your strategy will end up with NF or similar as PM, can you reassure me that I am wrong?

Just another load of unresearched tripe and bollocks again. I refer all the way back to my first interaction with you that nothing you post is based on any fact. Just another uneducated man who thinks he absolutely must inform women of his opinions. I'm not gonna bother interacting you with again until you start to respond to any of the counter evidence put to you or provide some evidence to your opinions (spoiler - you can't).

Yet you seem to think that the way to change these people's minds is to give them concrete evidence and call them racist if they refuse to listen or stupid if they listen to NF instead.
This did make me LOL. No one is calling you a stupid racist but thanks for confirming that you absolutely ARE refusing to engage in any actual concrete evidence that counters your uninformed opinion.

We probably will have NF as PM, but certainly not because of "my" strategy (you seem to be projecting your own ego onto others here? My strategy of...correcting misinformation? Forming my opinion based on actual evidence? ) and yours and mine and many others lives will be no more improved and will actually be worse in many ways if you bothered to actually read Reforms economic policy but reading isn't your forte or passion clearly.

The people you call racists have the concrete fact in front of them that their local town has a much larger immigrant population than it had 20 years ago (they can see with their own eyes, and they trust their own eyes), and that it has three mosques when it used to have one. They also perceive it to be less safe - and whilst their perception might not be a cold hard fact, and the perception is 100% real to the people who perceive it and their reality is that it is a cold hard fact that they feel less safe.

They want controlled immigration and to feel safe and you have zero chance of changing their minds with "facts" that contradict the "facts" that they can see with their own eyes.

Also, you keep referring to what I believe. I am not sure what I believe, other than that I believe that ignoring and insulting the 150,000 people on that march and the millions who support them is driving the rise of what you call the far right, and not reducing it... however many facts you might think you have. As someone who is left wing I believe that Farage would be appalling for this country, but that Rupert Lowe might be OK (but only with a large team of very competent people around him, and I don't believe he can create one).

Actually I do know what I believe - that cultures cannot survive unlimited immigration, that Islamism is disgusting, authoritarian and evil, and that British culture is worth saving. That does not make me racist, anti-muslim or anti-immigrant.

WTF?

This absolutely is racism. Shame on you.

Women need protection from men who sexually violent. These men exist in all communities. Plenty among Tommy Robinson supporters for example.

To be clear I said "Islamism" - extremist Islam - not simply "Islam".

Now, the million dollar question is what percentage of muslims in the UK are - or would be if push came to shove - Islamists? I would like to think it is tiny. I fear it may be significant. Obviously we would also need to define extremist. Is it extremist / Islamist to say that they support prison for gay men, or is that a normal Muslim position?

Tommy is not responsible for his supporters, that kind of thinking gets short shrift in here - we've heard it all before with Kellie-Jay Keen.

Guilt by association just doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Even if it was true why do you want to import more men with medieval opinions of how women and girls should be treated into this country?

I don't know what Farage believes deep down, but I don't think Trump is a fascist. I'm not sure what he is, something more like a kind of pragmatist. There is obviously a real tendency to authoritarianism, but I am not convinced he'd try and engineer a third term. I don't think he was as cut up about his loss last time as he let on.

I have also wondered how many of the things he's tried to reform will remain, whether it is a Republican or Democrat that gets in next. Rather like no one ever tried to undo Nixon's economic changes, even those who supposedly opposed them.

This is a lot of words to say "people have prejudice regardless of the facts and I believe the government should act on people's prejudices regardless of if they're based in reality". Also several posts later, you still haven't defined what you consider a British Value.