"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.

This is entirely unsurprising if you watch the citizen journalists / youtubers at the rally and the counter-demo.

DJE Media, Auditing Britain, MKR Audits, Mybrakesdontwork, Shady Shae, basedandbougie are youtubers most or all of whom covered it. Go look at some of their content from both sides. Six youtubers which includes one black man, two lesbians, one black woman and one non-English, non-white man.

It is also entirely unsurprising if you've been watching previous similar rally and if you've been paying any attention at all to the violent, aggressive, masked authoritarians that make up antifa / trantifa.

It's no surprise that all the violence at the rally on Saturday came from the left, they've got a long history of it.

I'd say much the same about all those people who voted in Keir Starmer - a man who couldn't tell that Mandelson is dodgy as f*.

The two things people REALLY REALLY need to remember.

(1) The mainstream media can be incredibly dishonest. For example the BBC referring to "thousands" of protestors when clearly the rally had minimum got 20,000 to 30,000 and any idiot could have confidently said "tens of thousands" without being at risk of exagerating (seems like 150,000 is more like the offical numbers, who knows the truth).

(2) People are human beings. They are imperfect. They make mistakes. They change their mind. But they can still have a lot worth listening to. And if someone is trying to learn and have conversations - and I believe Robinson is such a person - then they are already half way there, unlike antifa / trantifa who do not want conversations or to learn (they won't even speak to a camera when youtubers ask them what their message is - they are there to chant and threaten not share their message let alone converse or learn).

I have never voted many time over several decades and the closest I have come to a right wing vote was once voting Lib Dem (in a very very safe labour seat at a time when Lib Dems were supporting higher taxes than labour were). I voted remain.

Writing off Robinason's concerns as racism from a violent thug is just wrong, and even if it were not wrong it is pointless and quite possibly harmful to the left / centre

Precisely - if we're writing people off based on having one or more disgusting opinion or having done something really bad, then one can write off -

SNP, Plaid, Greens, Jezzbolah and Lib Dems based on their TQ+ misogyny and homophobia which is beyond the pale.

Labour - Keir Starmer's anti-free speech, pro-blasphemy law authoritarian tendencies.

That leaves us to choose between the Tories or an even further to theright party.

This.

What Labour and Conservatives and msm (yes, particularly the BBC) and some on this board don’t seem to grasp, whether it’s deliberate misunderstanding or not, is that the views held by people on that march are normal and held by many in this country and those views are not being addressed.

The fact TR and others of his ilk are involved means that it’s easy for politicians, lefties and msm to be dismissive of people’s real concerns and shout “far right”. TR is useful and convenient for them.

Yes doing it in front of a number 88 bus is far right imagery. I think the left in the past has overreached with the "far right dogwhistle" but the number 88 in that context is a genuine far right dog whistle. Nothing wrong with the flag itself.

1. The BBC did quote over 100,000 protesters which they then changed to 150,000 protesters. I don't automatically "trust the mainstream media" so I used an online crowd size calculator (which would be non biased since it is for any crowd left or right) and indeed that number seemed about right. SYLs own video putting the march at 800,000 to 1 million relied on the crowd concentration being a "more accurate" 8 people per square metre. Most mosh pits have a concentration of 2.5 people per square meter. A concentration of 8 people per square metre would have seen mass crushing deaths. Try standing in 1 metre square with 7 other people and see what I mean. In a sense the numbers don't matter- 150,000 is a huge number of people in itself and would be enough for SYL to claim success. So the over exaggeration looked like an attempt to accuse the mainstream media of lying when they weren't and further claim outsider status. When in fact the BBC, for all its failings, reported on the march honestly and much more extensively than it reported on other protests
2. I always believe in trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, SYL has never behaved honestly. See the deliberate attempt to mislead about the march size. I can remember recently when baby murderer Constance Martin blurted out in court that her husband had a rape conviction. It was incredibly obvious this was an attempt to cause a mistrial by giving information that should have been withheld. SYL also risked a mistrial when he protested outside one of the grooming gang trials. This was a case that had already gone to trial, where the victims had had to go through hell giving evidence etc. He knew full well that he was risking bringing the whole case down but still did it. At that point it's not about drawing attention to victims (the case was already in trial) it was about himself. He also lied about a child victim of severe bullying. Whatever you think about Syrian asylum seekers or immigrants this was a young child who was violently beaten up and humiliated in an online video. SYL lied, without no evidence, about him and continued to do so after being told to stop. SYL also much more recently retweeted an incredibly innocent video of a grandfather playing with his grandchildren implying the man was a paedophile for no other reason than the man was black and the child white.

I can completely believe that many of the people on the march were not racist or right wing. They were motivated by concerns around immigration, freedom of speech, women's rights, wanting to show support/pride for their country. But SYL is far right. And a bully. I don't like right wing bullies. I don't like left wing bullies.

And people are saying that you can't tar people by association - you can't say KJK is far right just because she was pictured with SYL. You can't say the people on the march were racist just because SYL is. I actually agree with this. But then to turn it round you can't also say "SYL has the support of everyone on that march so must be listened to". Pick an argument and stick with it.

@Signalbox
"This is why Reform will win the next election and It's why Trump won in the US."

I have said it before and I will keep saying it. If you are willing to change your vote because an anonymous person on the internet was rude to you then there is something deeply wrong with your reasoning skills. This is not an insult to people on the right. It applies equally to all persuasions.

Personally, I don't think the biggest threat to us comes from "the right" or "the left". It comes from above. And strangely,.having watched videos of the march where people talked about "elites" a lot of people there agree. It's mostly Elon Musk and his online cronies ranting about "the left". Presumably because he knows he's the above.

I’m not quite sure why this comment is aimed at me. Rude people on the internet have no influence on how I vote. I tend to look at policy and make my decision on that basis. I’m sure that applies to most people.

Because, every time there is discussion on this kind of thing one person will criticise left/right wing protesters and someone else will say "this is why reform will win" or "this sort of comment is why I won't vote for..." I guess maybe I misunderstood when you said "this is why reform will win".

I nearly started a thread about this because this seems like a really good place to ask, with lots of intelligent people

I hope it's alright to ask it here, as it seems like there might be people who can answer this question.

In terms of the witch hunt of J. K. Rowling, I wonder if the same thing actually happened to Tommy Robinson. I have a huge number of issues with Tommy Robinson - but racism isn't one of them.

From my memory, the EDL wore T-shirts that said "black-and-white unite".

But somehow everyone seemed to think they were the National Front. I got told by a lot of people that the t shirt was just a way of blatantly pretending to be something they weren't. I then didn't really think about it for years, until the Oxford union speech. And after that, I stopped thinking about it for years as well to be honest. But it seems as if people are now almost only just catching up to his Oxford union speech and they think he said a lot of stuff that he's actually never said, just like JK.

I was actually thinking about this in context of J. K. Rowling the other day. I cannot understand how all of this happened to her.

The trouble is, anything I might be able to read or watch about him is fricking hours long and he talks A LOT. In the same way that you can find documentation at least of how the J. K. Rowling witch hunt happened, does anyone know if similar info exists for TR?

I don't really know what I think of the Milli Hill piece until I get a better handle on the current situation. I'm not sure if it's just another case of somebody thinking I'm far right because of some of the concerns I have - and thereby deciding that the whole country is on a massive swing to the far right. What used to be a centrist position is now far right.

Thanks in advance if anyone can help.

To be fair he has always been more anti Muslim than antiblack. AThese are some of the issues In have with him if that helps:

1. Most recently retweeting a video posted by a grandmother of her husband playing at a playground with her granddaughter with the comment "WTF is going on here. Where are her parents" the video is completely innocent so either he had an issue with the fact the men were black, or the fact they were men. If the former it sort of gives the lie to the "black and white unite" or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he just has a high sensitivity to potential child abuse. Some people do.

1. There was a young Syrian child refugee who was very horribly beaten up and his attack filmed. At the time this happened there was a mass outpouring of sympathy and outrage. Not only from the left but also from plenty on the right/with anti-immigration views who whatever they thought about politics could sympathise with an innocent child. Except for SYL who swimming against the tide claimed that the child had actually been attacking other children. There was NO evidence for this whatsoever. It was proven to be false. He doubled down and was eventually served time in prison. Again, this was a young child

3.The EDL weren't predominantly anti-black (hence the T-shirts). They claimed to be anti-islamist but a lot of their activities pertained to anti-muslim in general. If it was just the EDL fighting Anti-fa then fair enough, let the angry men fight. I think both sides of that were motivated by the joy of a bust up (like football firms). But his group also attacked mosques and, eventually (2011) some of it's members were found to be planning bomb attacks against mosques. Bombs are bad. No matter who is making them. They also had links to Anders Breyvik. Who most people would describe as far right kind of guy.

1. Two years after this SYL left the EDL claiming that it was too extreme. He had had a bit of a damascene conversion. Fair play to him for that. Except it didn't really last and soon he was back to attacking not just extreme Islamism (which is also far right IMO) but also Muslims in general. I also don't really buy into the being sorry for what he had done in the past/his extremism because he has tended since then to frame himself as being persecuted for his beliefs. A "thinking the best" interpretation is that his change of heart was genuine but then he changed back. A less kind interpretation is that the bomb threats etc meant he needed to put some distance between himself and the organisation he founded.

1. I can understand being disgusted with the Grooming gangs. But SYLs narrative that he first became engaged in activism due to seeing these and noone doing anything doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. The early days of the EDL were spent getting into rucks with Suffi Mosques in South London. It was only much later that he got into decrying grooming gangs, a while after a lot of women. He also almost threw a criminal trial by live streaming from the steps of the court. It feels more about him/his publicity than anyone else. Also the first person in real authority to actually start the investigation into the grooming gangs was Nazis Afzal. He received a large number of death threats while investigating... from the far right https. Plus, a lot of his close associates have been arrested/accused of child sex abuse themselves. And haven't as far as I know been ejected from his party. When SYL zeroed in on grooming gangs they particularly zeroed in on some of the Telford victims. Which is fine except some of them started relationships with the abuse survivors. Not illegal as they were no longer a child then. But icky. Also, his close friendship with Andrew Tate is odd given Yates own record. It's not illegal to associate with people like Andrew Tate or convicted paedophiles. And I don't like "criminal by association". But it's inconsistent behaviour from someone who claims to be motivated by disgust at Muslim grooming gangs

1. The posing in front of a bus with a number 88. I know that to some people everything is a "far right dog whistle". But the number 88 genuinely is a far right dog whistle (the numbers stand for letters of the alphabet 88, HH) and SYL would have been completely aware of that given his history.

I do see your point about not wanting witch-hunts, as happened to JKR . but SYL has been quite happy to sic his internet followers on completely innocent people (including children). That's something JKR has never done - she does get into needs with people on the internet but they turn out pretty much all the time to be dreadful people and have usually started it. I havent seen her bully children and would feel differently about her if she did. I don't think two wrongs make a right. But there is something off about someone with a huge amount of followers and power regularly attacking completely innocent people online. But even very mild criticism or straightforward reporting of the facts relating to him gets marked as "unfair" or "MSM bias".

I do think there are people in Antifa, and some TRAs with the same personality traits. Its not just a right wing thing. But based on his words and actions i would say he is a bully.

I have more. But it was too long already. Also the numbering system is messed up
I think the thing I most mistrust is his ability to be absolutely awful online, or say the most awful stuff in some.contexts to some people, but then go on podcasts and be all "peace and love, I just want to protect the Childers". I think talking across the divide is good. But in this case it's just showing a completely different face. I know people who mean well but are just very bad at expressing themselves when they are upset/come across all wrong. I don't think it's as simple as that for SYL because he can be "nice" exactly when he needs to but then when it's someone with less power than him/a random on the internet turns very nasty. I actually prefer people who are the opposite - bad with authority but nice to children etc. it kind of suggests that he isn't some simple bloke with a heart of gold who just gets carried away by the cruelty of the world. He can show a very different face with people bigger than him. Again, it's bullying behaviour but always framed with him as a misunderstood victim.

And if he did genuinely regret his EDL days/the mosque bombs he would maybe be more understanding of the "MSM's suspicion" against him. If I had been in charge of a group planning bomb attacks and was disgusted by it, I would prob in in an R2ably try to avoid whipping people up into a frenzy again. Instead he is constantly telling his supporters the MSM can't be trusted/has a vendetta against him. Yes the BBC has fucked up in it's reporting of some things. But they gave loads of coverage to London's march. There was no attempt to cover up/downplay yet still..

@Namitynamename thank you - that's really helpful re the EDL.

Don't be ridiculous, that was just a coincidence. It's ridiculous coming in here and using something as pathetic as this to try and smear Tommy as 'far-right' - we've seen it all before with people trying to smear Kellie-Jay Keen for the same and it just won't wash.

Kelly J Keen doing up her coat in a livestream and someone freeze framing that as the OK symbol is very clearly a smear campaign. This was a photo they posed for and selected as their advertising for the event. To be honest if my grandmother was posing in front of a number 88 bus I would think coincidence. But I don't think SYL is a stupid man. He is politically adept, very aware of imagery and of symbols and has spent a long time moving in far right circles, (even if he himself was always more anti-Islam than explicitly into biological racism.) As I said, if I had founded a group which had then gone on to plan bomb attacks on Mosques/link up with Anders Breivik then even if I had no awareness of this at the time and was horrified when I found out, I would probably be aware that my messaging was going to be viewed with more suspicion. If you imagine he was a muslim, who had been the leader of a proIslam group that planned bomb attacks you would, I think, be more suspicious of any ambiguous messaging he went on to do.
KJK has not, as far as I am aware organised any women who then went on to try to blow up mosques.

You don't have to believe this if you don't want to. Maybe it's like the blue/gold dress. Or like Elon Musk's salute/throwing his heart out. But the people thinking it looks like far right symbolism are not just being "reactionary lefties" or trying to be pathetic and evil and smear him/his supporters. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion for other people to come to, even if you don't share it.

You have misunderstood my post. Reform won’t win because someone said something critical on the internet. For starters calling people racist or insinuating they are far-right isn’t a criticism. It’s an ad hominem attack designed to dehumanise or undermine a person’s position often without actually bothering to engage with their argument. When this happens on a forum it’s pretty irrelevant but when politicians engage in this type of behaviour what message does this send out? Why would you vote for a party that no longer represents your views and make it clear that they think you are a bad person for holding them. That party is unlikely to address the issues that you most care about. This is why Reform will win.

🤣

Fairdos.

But what if you do engage, honestly with their argument and the argument is a racist one, or an anti-muslim one, or even a far right one. I am not a politician but it is hard to engage with, for example, Elon Musk's or Peter Thiel's arguments without acknowledging that elephant in the room.

I also think some of this is a little ingenuous because for a long time, on the feminist boards, there was discussion of the impact "trans rights" would have on Muslim women. Eg their need for single sex spaces to adjust hair covers. Obviously other women also need single sex spaces. But the hypocrisy of the left was definitely mentioned. As was the racist arguments of some TRAs (eg the idea that trans women are like black women). Maybe not from you directly. It just seems quite hypocritical, now, to decide that actually quite unpleasant anti-muslim rhetoric is fine when it's not a trans woman doing it.

Be as rude as you want, I have been nothing but respectful to you and your positions. I have tried to understand your perspective while explaining my own (in answer to a direct question from you. I don't expect to change your mind. Have a nice day.

You're not the first TRA that's tried to infiltrate here and failed and you won't be the last.

Bye.

It seems to me that the "let's demonize Robinson" (and the likes of Farage) plan has failed. It seems to me that whichever side you are on the first thing to acknowledge is that he has taken a lot of knocks and is standing proud and popular as ever, if not more so.

If your problem is that he's a deeply flawed individual with convictions and other unsavoury things in his past (and present?) then it's probably best to get over it. You don't like him, others do. Many (me) are somewhere in the middle.

If your problem is his beliefs then, IMHO, you have to first try your best to understand what they are exactly. Then you have a choice -

(1) Argue rationally why open borders and unlimited migration, including by young men who are often islamists (extremist by definition, different from other muslims), is a good thing.

Argue why a woman or child who was raped by an immigrant is no worse off than had the immigrant who raped her not come here. (You may regard that as me mis-framing the issue, but we are talking about convincing Robinson's supporters, and you have to deal with how they have framed the issue, not how you think the issue should be framed)

Argue why it is important that hurty words on twitter leads to prison sentences which can be longer than for rape or paedophilia

Argue that there is no risk whatsoever that Islamism will become more of an influence in the UK

Argue that "multicultural Britain" has been a resounding success in every way, and there is no need whatsoever for British patriots who believe in free speech and democracy and traditional "christian values" to try to forge a movement which tries to bring back a British national pride and unity based on something more than Blairism.

OR

(2) Take on board some of the above ideas into Labour or Tories or Lib Dems and try to ensure that by giving Robinson's supporters some of what they want we can avoid the likes of Reform getting power.

OR

(3) Ignore the "hard right" and Robinson and simply hope.

I think (3) is a bad idea. I think that the only option for Labour and Tories is to do both (1) and (2) simultaneously. Unless, especially in the case of labour, they believe that unlimited immigration, more Islamism (sharia law etc), smearing anyone with a union jack or st george's cross as racist, clamp-downs on free speech etc are hills worth dying on, and it is better to fight for what you believe in and lose to Reform, than give some ground and win to prevent the worst of Reform.

One more thing... it will be absolutely fascinating to see how the "new right" will pan out. We have Farage who many people on the right are sceptical of. Robinson who is very popular but has no party as far as I know. We have Rupert Lowe / Restore (a more intelligent and less grifter-ish version of Reform), Advance UK. It is possible that the right wing vote will be even more split at the next election than they were at the last... maybe labour can have a mini revival and end up with a big majority in 2029 based on 25% of the vote. Alternatively maybe it won't pan out because maybe Tories and Labour will start listening to people and the new right will be a trivial Reform and nothing else.

I may be wrong, but my belief is that a typical group of ten Tommy Robinson supporters might include 5 christians, and 5 atheists who broadly support tradtional, judo-christian values.

They would support a muslim who doesn't cover her face if female, and who is a contructive part of the UK population, doesn't feel the need to pray in the street, doesn't support jihadism or terrorism or any special privileges for muslims. In fact I strongly believe that they would support a "normal" muslim for whom islam is a private matter not the be all and end all of their identity over a TRA or antifa type, because that sort of muslim is much more aligned to traditional british values than a TRA or antifa type is.

I genuinely believe TRAs message / aims are anti islam and anti islamism, whereas Robinson's message leaves room for "ordinary" muslims who reject islamism.

And back to engaging. IMHO you have no choice to engage, or simply concede defeat, because it is clear that the not engaging - and instead relying on people doing anything to avoid being called a fascist or a nazi - is not going to work.

ANd one more thing... I struggle to work out exactly where I sit on all of this in September 2025.

Part of me supports Robinson 100% when he expresses concern about Sharia Law in the UK, Islamists who would bring in Islamophobia laws and clamp down further on free speech, mass immigration not least illegal.

But another part of me remains a life-long leftist, terrified of even more right wing capitalism impoverishing the masses further; terrified of Farage privatizing the NHS and me or a family member dying because we can't afford the hospital bill. Terrified of the corruption and grifting that Farage would bring to the heart of the UK establishment if he were PM. Part of me thinks that avoiding a Reform government is such a priority that Labour really does need to give Robinson's supporters a lot of what they want, if only because Labour with Reform policies is better than Reform, however much you hate Reform and their policies.