The EU is phooked...

NUCLEAR REVOLUTION P.R. Sarkar Founder of PROUT (1969, Ranchi)

Revolution always takes place around a sentiment. If there is no strong common sentiment, a revolution cannot take place. Sentiment is always stronger than logic.

Communism propagates sentiments like workers of the world unite. Initially, people were attracted to such sentiments, but after some time they discovered that they were hollow, consequently intellectuals became dissatisfied with them. Communism is now unable to fight against the local sentiments that are coming up in different parts of the world because these sentiments are stronger than communist sentiments.

PROUT is based on a universal sentiment which is applicable for the whole cosmological order, and it is systematically moving towards the implementation of this sentiment. Who will make the local people conscious of their local sentiments keeping universalism in mind? Only PROUT can do this. Communists have no such idea. Only PROUT can tackle all local sentiments and lead everyone in the world to universalism by gradual stages.

Revolutionaries must be well-versed in arousing the sentiments of the people and channelizing the sentimental legacy of the society towards universalism. During the preparation for revolution, unstinting effort must go into arousing the sentimental legacy of the people, because sentiments inspire popular support for the cause of revolution, and infuse the revolutionary workers with tremendous power and conviction.

According to PROUT, there are two types of sentiments – positive sentiments and negative sentiments. Positive sentiments are synthetic in nature. They unite society and elevate humanity, enhance collective interests and encourage progressive development. Negative sentiments are narrow in scope and divide society.

Some important positive sentiments include anti-exploitation sentiment, revolutionary sentiment, moral sentiment, cultural sentiment, universal sentiment and spiritual sentiment. Some negative sentiments include communalism, patriotism, nationalism, provincialism, lingualism and racism.

Negative sentiments should never be used to divide people into castes and communities – to create artificial fissiparous tendencies in society. Rather, they should always be used to bring unity amongst people. Hitler used racism in an effort to unite the German people and he succeeded in the short-term, but because he used negative sentiments only and had no positive sentiments, his approach resulted in a world war and the near destruction of Germany. The path of negativity is extremely dangerous and harmful for society. Positive sentiments are the real weapons to build society. This must never be forgotten under any circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersub6

I can't believe that you two are getting so beat up about something that was said thirty two and a half years ago and which has no significance whatsoever in the current climate.

Politicians say all sorts of things in order to cover their backs and that is the sole purpose!
Sorry guys --just chill ---there is far too much angst on this board. Life is only a game and it will end sometime and not always when you expect!

---

You've got to put this into perspective Sub, me and 59 are bored witless, we have to find something to argue about, anything will do, even if it goes back into the mists of time. For my part I also need to keep busy at the keyboard, if I leave it for more than ten minutes Mrs S will find me another job to do. 59 and his barking mad political views are my lifeline, just leave us to it.;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

You've got to put this into perspective Sub, me and 59 are bored witless, we have to find something to argue about, anything will do, even if it goes back into the mists of time. For my part I also need to keep busy at the keyboard, if I leave it for more than ten minutes Mrs S will find me another job to do. 59 and his barking mad political views are my lifeline, just leave us to it.;D

---

sinkov--- all now put into perspective -----Carry On Chaps!! ;D

Thatch Churchill bod was a nasty piece of work, eh Sinkov?

A male chauvinist who got lucky.

;D

I have read countless books on Winston Churchill and concluded many years ago, that despite his numerous and well documented faults (hands up who hasn't any?) he was a true force of nature.

How we could do with one like him now!

Attachment 15385

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bedlington Terrier

I have read countless books on Winston Churchill and concluded many years ago, that despite his numerous and well documented faults (hands up who hasn't any?) he was a true force of nature.

How we could do with one like him now!

Attachment 15385

---

Agreed BT, Margaret Thatcher in trousers. They don't make 'em like that any more, either of them. XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

Agreed BT, Margaret Thatcher in trousers. They don't make 'em like that any more, either of them. XD

---

I cannot share that comparison sinkov. One was a force majeure, the other a war criminal in my opinion. I know I could not possibly go any further down in your estimation, but when the news came out of the bitch's passing me and the ex-wife (who despised her as much as I did) quaffed our three bottle stock of chilled Bollinger in one session! :D

Attachment 15390

He was the right bloke at the right time. But he also, thankfully, had lots of luck.

Almost our entire army could have been wiped out on the beaches of Dunkirk but Hitler, who even at that stage, respected the Brits and wanted a British/German coalition, so he didn'y apply the coup de grace.

At the end of the Battle of Britain we had reached our limit. A few more attacks and Germany would have won. But, at the eleventh hour they decided to bomb London instead and we survived.

The Nazi's were running things in Western Europe and should have taken complete control. But they opened their Eastern front towards Russia which left them stretched on both fronts. They suffered on the Eastern front from a very harsh winter and their attack was repelled on the gates of Moscow. All this allowed us to remobilise and start our counter attack. But it should have been all over by then.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour brought America (who had up to that point remained neutral) into the war at just the right time for us. No way would we have won the war if this hadn't happened.

When things looked grimmest Churchill refused to sue for peace with Germany, as a lot of his cabinet were urging him to do. This was a terrific risk, and if the events above had turned out differently we would all be eating sh1te sausages and drinking sh1te beer today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bedlington Terrier

I cannot share that comparison sinkov. One was a force majeure, the other a war criminal in my opinion. I know I could not possibly go any further down in your estimation, but when the news came out of the bitch's passing me and the ex-wife (who despised her as much as I did) quaffed our three bottle stock of chilled Bollinger in one session! :D

Attachment 15390

---

No problem with that at all BT, any excuse to open the Bolly will do for me. In fact I'm delighted to read it, Saint Margaret detested Lefties, I'm sure she never lost any sleep over the fact that those feelings were reciprocated, and the fact that the Left are still dancing on her grave, and still lying about her, illustrates what a fecking good job she did. God bless her and rest her soul.

"NHS cuts etc, etc."

Here we go again, what is it with you lefties and the truth BT, more lies and FAKE NEWS. In 2010 spending on the NHS was ring-fenced, there were no cuts. No doubt the NHS was underfunded, no doubt the money gobbling monster needed much more, especially as demand for it's services was increasing annually, as our open borders meant our population was increasing by the size of half a dozen decent sized towns every year. But while most other areas saw a reduction in government spending, the NHS did not.

" Since 2009−10, health spending growth has slowed sharply. Between 2009–10 and 2018–19, real spending grew by an annual average of 1.3%. Average increases of 1.0% per year under the coalition government (2009–10 to 2014–15) were the smallest five-year average seen under any government. However, it is important to note that these increases took place over a period during which most areas of public spending experienced large reductions. Indeed, spending on areas such as education, defence, and public order and safety has fallen, while spending on health has continued to rise – albeit at a slower rate than has tended to be the case historically."