Fight or flight mechanism has worked well for our survival over centuries. Go back to the ancient settlers. If they saw a lion or a tiger killing one of their tribe, having not seen the danger the first time they were exposed to it, the second time it entered their village they would be armed and either kill it or cause it to fear them and withdraw. Thereby saving their people and averting the threat. But what if the elders told the tribe to approach the tiger and reason with it? And it killed them. Would one trust the judgement of the elder of the village? Is the threat lessened because those in power say it is? Perhaps not all lions and tigers will kill you? And if one in 100 is benign should we be off our guard?

So, yes, actually if something or someone (in this case an ideology) has a track record of causing harm we should (if we have a survival instinct) FEAR it and FIGHT it.

 The Populist stance on the middle East is to keep out of it, but....

Many people believe that (rightly) the UK British are entitled to keep our own territory and not become a minority in a few generations (since 1948).

But the same people don't believe that the Palestinians are entitled to keep THEIR our own territory and not become a minority within what was the Palestinian Mandated Territory within in a few generations (since 1948).

To hold BOTH opinions is clearly contradictory and hypocritical. We cannot spell it out more clearly than that.

Whether one likes or dislikes either side in the conflict is immaterial.

We are looking for consistency and objectivity and hold one stance for one group of folk, but not for another is inconsistent.

There's an old saying "treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself".

We can hardly advocate for opposing colonists displacing the existing population in England and then about turn when it is applied to the Palestinians.

Footnote: The Left are as bad as they couldn't give a stuff about the indigenous English becoming a minority, yet are prepared to march for the Palestinians who have been displaced.

WE SAY - march for both or march for neither. That's consistency.

 

                   Join the Populist Party today.  

                   B.A.C.S. sort code 20-98-57

                   Account Number 20332798. 

                   It is only £5 per year, though extra                               donations on top are welcome....

 A joint social event between the National Housing Party UK and the Populist Party - Christmas Drinks - will take place at 7pm on Saturday December 7th 2024 at a Central London pub.

For venue details please contact us on populistparty@yahoo.co.uk.

 While honouring those who died, it was in vein. We'd have been better of if the Kaiser had won.

World War one was a war between two Imperial Royal Houses (related) in which there was no ideological/political argument, no "bad guys" and where millions of lives lost on either side due to the folly of imperial powers.

If the UK had not gone to war with the Kaiser's German Empire, then it is probable that the Versailles treaty would not have "stolen" land from Germany, no war reparations, no Rosa Luxemburg attempt to set up a Communist state, and therefore the "German Workers' Party" would not have been set up by Anton Drexler because there would be no grievance against the outcome of the Great War, because it would never have happened.

The Jews would not have been blamed for profiteering from that war, and would have faced no more anti-Semitism in Germany than existed in 1914.

The "stab in the back theory" would not have existed and Hitler would have been quite happy as a painter in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and he would not have joined the DAP (if it even existed), thus not turning it into the the Nazi NSDAP.

Thus no Weimar, no Holocaust, no World War 2, no Eastern Bloc beyond the USSR borders, no Berlin Wall, no missiles in Greenham Common. Also no World War 2 means no loss of UK lives in mainland Europe, no "manpower shortage" in the UK after 1945 (and no opportunity for pro-immigration lobbies/big firms to claim there was), meaning no "Windrush" and probably no collapse of the British Empire, meaning no Idi Amin and no Ugandan Asian crisis.

Less immigration and no loss of nerve means that the ruling class keeps its empire and rejects the EU. So, our present troubles can largely to traced back to 1914 and the decision to go to war with Germany and their Austro-Hungarian Allies...

And now the British Legion has a "Diversity Officer" this only adds to my belief that the wrong side won the Great War.

 Someone on another thread claimed that Russian soldiers were committing atrocities. We are not going to verify, deny or condone, but as with the Yugoslav civil wars, there will be artocities committed on both sides, but unlike then, there is a clear divide between the aims of the Ukranian elite (WEF/EU/Globalism) and the Russians (anti-NWO).

We support neutrality outside NATO but it is tempting to take sides when all you hear is pro-Ukraine propaganda from those who back expanding the EU Eastwards. And you just KNOW that the long term aim is to topple Putin, Medvedev and the rest and install a compliant ruler (Zelensky style) who would negotiate away Russian independence and take them into the EU so the multinationals could take over their "markets".

A lot of people BELIEVED that Brexit would bring forth a new age of self-sufficiency, but with the Tories in charge (with their support for importing rather than home produce) this wasn't going to be allowed to happen.
Without greater self-sufficiency (protectionism, economic nationalism - call it what we will) Brexit cannot work.