1. grave-at-trenzalore:

    followingthedeer:

    sainthannah:

    heatherbat:

    stunningpicture:

    ‘Cause people seem to only post the 20-something Audrey Hepburn.

    Audrey Hepburn was the granddaughter of a baron, the daughter of a nazi sympathizer, spent her teens doing ballet to secretly raise money for the dutch resistance against the nazis, and spent her post-film career as a goodwill ambassador of UNICEF, winning the presidential medal of freedom for her efforts.

    …and history remembers her as pretty.

    AND HISTORY REMEMBERS HER AS PRETTY

    note

    this is the first time I have ever seen a picture of her older than 20 and I think that’s scary

    (via lohanthony)

     
  2. (Source: drakemoji, via ruinedchildhood)

     

  3. amberrosesshavedhead:

    my tinder matches can just be summed up as ‘hipster scum’

     
  4. rubee:

    you fuckin fat cunt

    (via clestroying)

     

  5. darrynek:

    *tries to be funny and gets assassinated*

    (Source: panerasexual, via lohanthony)

     
  6. communistwomanifesto:

    why

    White people can’t be stopped

    (via amberrosesshavedhead)

     

  7. "

    Beyond Ferguson, the pattern is clear. Blacks are always to blame, even as we are brutalized by police, ghettoized by neoliberal policies, and disenfranchised by a racist criminal (in)justice system.

    But that’s the crux of white supremacist racial logic: the problem with black people is … well, black people – not mass incarceration and the deindustrialization of urban America, not educational inequality and generational poverty, not 400 years of slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow. To be black in America is to be victimized and then made responsible for our victimization. We built this country. But, apparently, it is we who are lazy and dependent. We are bullied politically, socially and economically. But it is we who are called ‘thugs.’

    "
     
  8. talix18:

    shamelesslyunladylike:

    lesradicalfeminisms:

    tumbling-torterra:

    a-strawbarry:

    houseofheavy:

    etspiritusvitae:

    the female body is hardcore as fuck. 

    Yes is it.

    so is the male body

    it’s sad to see so many people like this on this website

    OP is praising the fact that women hold a fucking infant in their belly the size of a ribcage, get the fuck over yourself for 3.5 seconds.

    *~*~follow for more fragile male ego~*~*

    The male body is more susceptible to hereditary diseases because of their lack of a second X chromosome. Their testosterone production ages them faster and causes them to die sooner. Their center of gravity is higher because of their tiny little hips and overgrown shoulders, making them easier to topple. Their gonads are placed outside of the body, in a very vulnerable position, because they do not function properly if they get a little bit warmer than usual. They have non-functional nipples, but still enough breast tissue to get cancer.

    The male body is not hardcore. The male body is to the female body what a shoddy, unstable mod is to a well-estabilished piece of software. Sit the fuck down. And try to not crush your fragile pathetic outside gonads when you do it.

    I love this place.

    (Source: deadlyart, via karnythia)

     
  9. THIS IS PAWNEE F*CKING TODAY!

    (Source: noahpuckermen, via tinafeyed)

     

  10. "No, I think it’s quite unrealistic to expect what we call Bollywood or—I don’t think we should restrict ourselves when we’re talking about 100 years of cinema, we shouldn’t be talking only about Bollywood because after all there’s the Tamil cinema, and there’s Malayalam cinema and so on. But I think what unites all of them when we speak of their genre of filmmaking is that it’s commercial cinema. And I think to have expectations of a certain sort of—of any kind of politics, especially radical politics, coming out of a system which is essentially constructed around money, I think its an unrealistic assumption. I think that it’s something which will never be fulfilled. After all, if we look at America and you look at Hollywood, there are films that question the status quo in America, but they don’t come out of the studio system, because that studio system is like Bollywood, it’s all about money its about somebody is going to invest money. Now the sum of money may not be a hundred crore like in a big feature film, it could be five crore, but who is going to give you five crore and not expect returns. So I think the key to understanding commercial cinema whether it’s out of Bollywood or Chennai or Thiruvananthapuram or Kolkata, is that it’s essentially about money. And I think there was a brief period in the ’70s and ’80s when, what used to be called the Film Finance Corporation and later the National Film Development Corporation, tried to slip in and support what was called alternative cinema. It was an interesting experiment but doomed to fail because, you know, here you had films that were meant to push the boundaries of what we are talking about, they were meant to take on themes of the countryside, of what was happening in villages, but it was funded by the government! The government was happy to give a little bit of money to allow those films to be made, but they put nothing into the distribution of those films—and I’m not surprised because some of those films were, in their own way, quite radical in their questioning of what was going on. So whether it’s Bollywood commercial cinema or it’s a state supported alternative cinema, I think that it would be very very naive to expect them to actually produce anything which questions the status quo—which is I think when we are talking about political cinema, that’s what we are talking about, films that actually question things, and that’s not going to happen."
    — ALTERNATIVE SPACE FOR FILMS OF RESISTANCE IN BOLLYWOOD, Sanjay Kak on 100 Years of Cinema (via dhrupad)

    (via azaadi)