good question. altough i kinda like being *obscure in my taste for videos. its a fun game to see if i at least get enoch's vote (most of the times that's a yes ) a side note: Turbonegro has been the only band that made me fear for seriously injuring myself or even dying at a concert. after their concert at the sziget festival (where i was in the front row, being crushed by their awful fan-posse) in Hungary my ribs (ribcage? i'm not sure what its called in english) hurt for at least 2 months after their concert.

but anyway... thanks for the promote, really appreciated!

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Why doesn't more people vote up paul4dirt's videos?! *promote this great song

Region blocked. Or at least in Hungary doesn't work.

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." - Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschilds wife.

-

"I am one of those who do not believe the national debt is a national blessing... it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."

Andrew Jackson, Letter to L. H. Coleman of Warrenton, N.C., 29 April 1824

-

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had mens views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913), Doubleday

-

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

Winston Churchill, "Zionism versus Bolshevism", Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

-

"The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few."

Henry Ford, My Life and Work, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922

-

"I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment or bank sale destroys a deposit. And they who control the credit of a nation, direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

Reginald McKenna, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressing the shareholders as Chairman of the Midland Bank, at the Annual General Meeting in January 1924.

-

"The present Federal Reserve System is a flagrant case of the Governments conferring a special privilege upon bankers. The Government hands to the banks its credit, at virtually no cost to the banks, to be loaned out by the bankers for their own private profit. Still worse, however, is the fact that it gives the bankers practically complete control of the amount of money that shall be in circulation. Not one dollar of these Federal Reserve notes gets into circulation without being borrowed into circulation and without someone paying interest to some bank to keep it circulating. Our present money system is a debt money system. Before a dollar can circulate, a debt must be created. Such a system assumes that you can borrow yourself out of debt."

Willis A. Overholser, A short review and analysis of the history of money in the United States, with an introduction to the current money problem (1936), p. 56

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alizarin:
>> ^zor:
Great sift! I've never seen anything like that before. Now, on to find the assholes who made those and sold them.

That'd be us - "mines found in Cambodia have been manufactured in the US, China, Vietnam, the former USSR and East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, India, Chile, South and North Korea, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland." - article
As of 2007, a total of 158 nations have agreed to [ban landmines]. Thirty-seven countries have not agreed to the ban, including China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
We deserve a swift kick to the nuts!

Actually, the particular mines this guy is defusing would NOT be us(the western world). The video description is clear that the Khmer Rouge(communists) were the ones that laid the fields he is clearing.
I know it may seem anal but the details of how these atrocities went down are important to remember and have straight.



I believe the question was "who made the landmines" not "who laid the landmines" in which case the WEsterners would be among the culprits.
"The CMAC reports that mines found in Cambodia have been manufactured in the US, China, Vietnam, the former USSR and East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, India, Chile, South and North Korea, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland."

"I know it may seem anal but the details of how these atrocities went down are important to remember and have straight."

>> ^alizarin:
>> ^zor:
Great sift! I've never seen anything like that before. Now, on to find the assholes who made those and sold them.

That'd be us - "mines found in Cambodia have been manufactured in the US, China, Vietnam, the former USSR and East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, India, Chile, South and North Korea, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland." - article
As of 2007, a total of 158 nations have agreed to [ban landmines]. Thirty-seven countries have not agreed to the ban, including China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
We deserve a swift kick to the nuts!


Actually, the particular mines this guy is defusing would NOT be us(the western world). The video description is clear that the Khmer Rouge(communists) were the ones that laid the fields he is clearing. The swift kick in the nuts is still shared with us for being the ones that carpet bombed Cambodia into the stone ages 'just in case', paving the way for the Khmer Rouge to commence their own even worse genocide of the country.

I know it may seem anal but the details of how these atrocities went down are important to remember and have straight.

And the biggest reason for opposing the landmine ban is situations like Korea were tonnes of explosives hidden in land mines along the border play a big role in PREVENTING violence.

And yes, this guy rocks.

>> ^zor:
Great sift! I've never seen anything like that before. Now, on to find the assholes who made those and sold them.


That'd be us - "mines found in Cambodia have been manufactured in the US, China, Vietnam, the former USSR and East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, India, Chile, South and North Korea, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland." - article

As of 2007, a total of 158 nations have agreed to [ban landmines]. Thirty-seven countries have not agreed to the ban, including China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.

We deserve a swift kick to the nuts!

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by therealblankman.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Best-Worst-Anti-War-Song-Ever-from-Hungary

One side of the family came from a mix of Hungary and northern Turkey (Laz) area. Both my aunt and uncle were musicians and singers, my cousin continued the tradition. As a small child I remember my uncle paying a similar instrument singing folk songs that had a very similar sound to them. A great find. Though I don't understand that language, it would be nice to have a translation. Even if rough. Anyone?

Don't get your panties in a bunch, these have all been sifted already:

http://www.videosift.com/video/legacy0100-and-JTZ-make-the-worst-music-video-ever-made
http://www.videosift.com/video/Tunak-Tunak-Tun
http://www.videosift.com/video/white-boyband-trio-sings-about-going-down-on-black-urban-boy
http://www.videosift.com/video/Best-Worst-Anti-War-Song-Ever-from-Hungary (my personal favorite)
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-Mulleted-American-National-Anthem
http://www.videosift.com/video/When-D-D-meets-MTV-WTF-Insanely-Terrible-Pop-Video

Now go vote up the finest specimens of *Music + *Terrible.

Last I heard, they reached an annual inflation rate of 89.7 sextillion percent last November. Anyone know if they passed Hungary '46 by now as the highest monthly inflation rate ever?

It is highly improbable that this imperialist war of 1914–16 will be transformed into a national war, because the class that represents progress is the proletariat, which, objectively, is striving to transform this war into civil war against the bourgeoisie; and also because the strength of both coalitions is almost equally balanced, while international finance capital has everywhere created a reactionary bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that such a transformation is impossible: if the European proletariat were to remain impotent for another twenty years; if the present war were to end in victories similar to those achieved by Napoleon, in the subjugation of a number of virile national states; if imperialism outside of Europe (primarily American and Japanese) were to remain in power for another twenty years without a transition to socialism, say, as a result of a Japanese-American war, then a great national war in Europe would be possible. This means that Europe would be thrown back for several decades. This is improbable. But it is not impossible, for to picture world history as advancing smoothly and steadily without sometimes taking gigantic strides backward is undialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong.

Further, national wars waged by colonial, and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism. The colonies and semi-colonies (China, Turkey, Persia) have a population of nearly one billion, i.e., more than half the population of the earth. In these countries the movements for national liberation are either very strong already or are growing and maturing. Every war is a continuation of politics by other means. The national liberation politics of the colonies will inevitably be continued by national wars of the colonies against imperialism. Such wars may lead to an imperialist war between the present “Great” imperialist Powers or they may not; that depends on many circumstances.

For example: England and France were engaged in a seven years war for colonies, i.e., they waged an imperialist war (which is as possible on the basis of slavery, or of primitive capitalism, as on the basis of highly developed modern capitalism). France was defeated and lost part of her colonies. Several years later the North American States started a war for national liberation against England alone. Out of enmity towards England, i.e., in conformity with their own imperialist interests, France and Spain, which still held parts of what are now the United States, concluded friendly treaties with the states that had risen against England. The French forces together with the American defeated the English. Here we have a war for national liberation in which imperialist rivalry is a contributory element of no great importance, which is the opposite of what we have in the war of 1914–16 (in which the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry). This shows how absurd it would be to employ the term imperialism in a stereotyped fashion by deducing from it that national wars are “impossible.” A war for national liberation waged, for example, by an alliance of Persia, India and China against certain imperialist Powers is quite possible and probable, for it follows logically from the national liberation movements now going on in those countries. Whether such a war will be transformed into an imperialist war among the present imperialist Powers will depend on a great many concrete circumstances, and it would be ridiculous to guarantee that these circumstances will arise.

Thirdly, national wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism even in Europe. The “epoch of imperialism” made the present war an imperialist war; it inevitably engenders (until the advent of socialism) new imperialist war; it transformed the policies of the present Great Powers into thoroughly imperialist policies. But this “epoch” by no means precludes the possibility of national wars, waged, for example, by small (let us assume, annexed or nationally oppressed) states against the imperialist Powers, any more than it precludes the possibility of big national movements in Eastern Europe. With regard to Austria, for example, Junius shows sound judgment in taking into account not only the “economic,” but also the peculiar political situation, in noting Austria’s “inherent lack of vitality” and admitting that “the Hapsburg monarchy is not a political organisation of a bourgeois state, but only a loosely knit syndicate of several cliques of social parasites,” that “historically, the liquidation of Austria-Hungary is merely the continuation of the disintegration of Turkey and at the same time a demand of the historical process of development.” The situation is no better in certain Balkan states and in Russia. And in the event of the “Great Powers” becoming extremely exhausted in the present war, or in the event of a victorious revolution in Russia, national wars, even victorious ones, are quite possible. On the one hand, intervention by the imperialist powers is not possible under all circumstances. On the other hand, when people argue haphazardly that a war waged by a small state against a giant state is hopeless, we must say that a hopeless war is war nevertheless, and, moreover, certain events within the “giant” states—for example, the beginning of a revolution—may transform a “hopeless” war into a very “hopeful” one.

The fact that the postulate that “there can be no more national wars” is obviously fallacious in theory is not the only reason why we have dealt with this fallacy at length. It would be a very deplorable thing, of course, if the “Lefts” began to be careless in their treatment of Marxian theory, considering that the Third International can be established only on the basis of Marxism, unvulgarised Marxism. But this fallacy is also very harmful in a practical political sense; it gives rise to the stupid propaganda for “disarmament,” as if no other war but reactionary wars are possible; it is the cause of the still more stupid and downright reactionary indifference towards national movements. Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of “Great” European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that “there can be no more national wars!” National wars against the imperialist Powers are not only possible and probable, they are inevitable, they are progressive and revolutionary, although, of course, what is needed for their success is either the combined efforts of an enormous number of the inhabitants of the oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in the example we have taken of India and China), or a particularly favourable combination of circumstances in the international situation (for example, when the intervention of the imperialist Powers is paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their mutual antagonisms, etc.), or a simultaneous uprising of the proletariat of one of the Great Powers against the bourgeoisie (this latter case stands first in order from the standpoint of what is desirable and advantageous for the victory of the proletariat).

We must state, however, that it would be unfair to accuse Junius of being indifferent to national movements. When enumerating the sins of the Social-Democratic Parliamentary group, he does at least mention their silence in the matter of the execution of a native leader in the Cameroons for “treason” (evidently for an attempt at insurrection in connection with the war); and in another place he emphasises (for the special benefit of Messrs. Legien, Lensch and similar scoundrels who call themselves “Social-Democrats”) that colonial nations are also nations. He declares very definitely: “Socialism recognises for every people the right to independence and freedom, the right to be masters of their own destiny.... International socialism recognises the right of free, independent, equal nations, but only socialism can create such nations, only socialism can establish the right of nations to self-determination. This slogan of socialism,” justly observes the author, “like all its other slogans, serves, not to justify the existing order of things, but as a guide post, as a stimulus to the revolutionary, reconstructive, active policy of the proletariat.” (p. 77-78) Consequently, it would be a profound mistake to suppose that all the Left German Social-Democrats have stooped to the narrow-mindedness and distortion of Marxism advocated by certain Dutch and Polish Social-Democrats, who repudiate self-determination of nations even under socialism. However, we shall deal with the special Dutch and Polish sources of this mistake elsewhere.

Another fallacious argument advanced by Junius is in connection with the question of defence of the fatherland. This is a cardinal political question during an imperialist war. Junius has strengthened us in our conviction that our Party has indicated the only correct approach to this question: the proletariat is opposed to defence of the fatherland in this imperialist war because of its predatory, slave-owning, reactionary character, because it is possible and necessary to oppose to it (and to strive to convert it into) civil war for socialism. Junius, however, while brilliantly exposing the imperialist character of the present war as distinct from a national war, falls into the very strange error of trying to drag a national programme into the present non-national war. It sounds almost incredible, but it is true.

The official Social-Democrats, both of the Legien and of the Kautsky shade, in their servility to the bourgeoisie, who have been making the most noise about foreign “invasion” in order to deceive the masses of the people as to the imperialist character of the war, have been particularly assiduous in repeating this “invasion” argument. Kautsky, who now assures naive and credulous people (incidentally, through the mouth of “Spectator,” a member of the Russian Organization Committee) that he joined the opposition at the end of 1914, continues to use this “argument”! To refute it, Junius quotes extremely instructive examples from history, which prove that “invasion and class struggle are not contradictory in bourgeois history, as the official legend has it, but that one is the means and the expression of the other.” For example, the Bourbons in France invoked foreign invaders against the Jacobins; the bourgeoisie in 1871 invoked foreign invaders against the Commune. In his Civil War in France, Marx wrote:

“The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of the classes, and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out in civil war.”[7]

I have no idea if that is a joke but it's hilarious nonetheless.

In reply to this comment by radx:
That's a first league match in Hungary and they seemingly nick-named the shepherd Cristiano Ronaldo afterwards.

That's a first league match in Hungary and they seemingly nick-named the shepherd Cristiano Ronaldo afterwards.

the creator has left the following comment:

I just found out through the digg comments that this video has been blocked in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Brazil, Russia and other countries, because it is apparently illegal in those places to use any symbol of the Nazis except for art and education, according to Wikipedia.

I would consider this as art, but who knows? Some people may have bad tastes.

Anyway a hastily edited version of the video safe for German (etc.) eyes should be done and uploaded tomorrow.

Perhaps we can switch to the censored video or, preferably (IMO), slap a link to it in the description when it becomes available.