Frame 1:35 stolen from a movie?
It seems to be a execution scene with napoleonic soldiers...

And 1:48 could be Amadeus but i am not sure right now

The ship off course must be part of a movie aswell

I smell legal action

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]

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Napoleon XIV, Theyre Coming To Take Me away, Ha Haaa' to 'Napoleon XIV, Theyre Coming To Take Me away, Ha Haaa, dr demento' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

Everyone here seems to think that Fahrenheit 451 is a book about censorship, and that's a reasonable interpretation, but somewhat disappointingly it's not what Bradbury intended. Quoth Wikipedia:

"Over the years, the novel has been subject to various interpretations, primarily focusing on the historical role of book burning in suppressing dissenting ideas. Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship; he states that Fahrenheit 451 is a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature, which leads to a perception of knowledge as being composed of "factoids", partial information devoid of context, e.g., Napoleon's birth date alone, without an indication of who he was."

Somewhat contradicting this stance is the fact that Bradbury later added an introduction to the book which specifically addressed censorship, and does indeed make this video seem ironic:

"There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist / Zionist / Seventh-day Adventist / Women's Lib / Republican / Mattachine / FourSquareGospel feel it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse….Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by the minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the library closed forever. ... Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with the censorship and book-burning in the future, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony. Judy-Lynn del Rey, one of the new Ballantine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place."

Cops need rotation.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like when you put guys in the midst of shit the shit starts rubbing off.

I'm not anti-cop. Very few of us are.

But I'm sick of little fuckers with Napoleon complexes. I'm sick of "whoopsie-daisies!" I absolutely fucking hate SWAT team assholes who kick down doors and beat the shit out of anybody in sight.

I fucking hate the DEA. They are a big part of the problem and most of them, the smart ones anyway, know it.

Napoleon Dynamite flashback, anyone?

I love reading this kind of idiocy. These are the same people that point to signature of the Sec of Treasury as "proof" that our tender is *NOT* legal. The holes in this "logic" are so insane that I won't even attempt to point them all out. I'll start with the very first one.

America started the War of 1812. Britain did *NOT* declare war on America. They were a bit busy with this guy Napoleon in 1812 and the LAST thing they wanted was a new war in the colonies. But we wanted to invade Canada.

These are the same idiots who claim to know, factually, that the income tax is unconstitutional because the 16th amendment was not properly processed.

It's all just stupid.

Your post is peppered with so many logical fallacies that I don't want to validate it as an argument.

It's a fine rant, neither proving nor disproving a God-Force.

I WOULD however like to point out that most of the post makes little sense unless you make huge assumptions about a variety of different topics.

Mayhaps. Faith and reason remain polite opponents, but unfortunately for some, people are not logical or reasonable most of the time.

We can always fall back on what Napoleon said about religion: it has kept the poor from murdering the rich.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Your post is peppered with so many logical fallacies that I don't want to validate it as an argument. I WOULD however like to point out that most of the post makes little sense unless you make huge assumptions about a variety of different topics.


In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.

By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

Moving this video to Napoleon's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

@ Nordich Reitler - http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=759b5f2b-920d-4ca5-ad97-b922c60266f1&p=1

Read it and tell me how well the Minute Men are doing.

@ QuantumMushroom - where to begin? Because someone is a liberal it doesn't make them a "socialist" anymore than it makes you a nazi skinhead. Are you a nazi skinhead?

WTF does language have to do with militias? Unless you
racist, that is.

Illegal immigration brought California to the brink of economic collapse? Funny, I thought the entire country was on the brink of economic collapse. I guess it's easy to blame all the illegal spics in Michigan and Ohio for those States' economic troubles.

The "Lawful Right to Bear Arms" - ah yes, the fall back. I have a lawful right to drink my own urine, tattoo images of Napoleon Dynamite all over my body, or eat nothing but grits my entire life. If I did those things, even though legal, wouldn't you think I was a fucken loon? Because you have a right to do something, that doesn't make it any less stoopid.

@ Constitutional Patriot - See previous paragraph.

Also - "Militias comprise Americans of all walks of life, race, religion, creed." Funny thing...I think if you see Christian Americans doing this kind of thing, it's fine. See Muslims Americans doing the same thing, and you would flip out like a bunch of pansy school girls.

Am I wrong?

Am I wrong?

I don't personally care which way it goes, but can we get some sort of official yes or no on autoplaying vids please?
I'm looking at this from Lucky and yeah, it's officially frowned upon but there's no rule yet.
It looks like a lot of research went into disabling it, for whatever reason.

I think the best example is here

Dude, Nostradamus predicted Hitler's rise, and Napoleon's.

He says we're in for a 3rd "Anti-Christ" like those two.

We just need to look for a guy in the middle east wearing a blue hat. Maybe something like this:

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bRveRJ5XQcdX/610x.jpg

That's my understanding. Seems like an unwritten rule, that maybe should get put in the posting guidelines.
*return

Moving this video to Napoleon's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Moving this video to Napoleon's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.