wolf-d:

this gif pisses me off

wolf-d:

this gif pisses me off

(Source: cravetocreate)

Reblogged from cannibist with 231,421 notes / Permalink

Glasgow noir.

Glasgow noir.

1 note / Permalink

Dear Mom and Dad, I write from Los Santos.

0 notes / Permalink

Must We Burn Maajid Nawaz?

Must We Burn Maajid Nawaz?


There’s no getting around it. The Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, Maajid Nawaz, is a controversial guy. Described by Muslim crackpot Anjem Choudary as a ‘traitor to the faith’ and suggested to be a secret Islamist by Christian crackpot Glenn Beck, it’s clear he has ruffled more than a few feathers. In fact, it would take the entirety of this blog post to list the enemies he’s accrued - many of whom are a lot more dangerous than the aforementioned talking heads.

In spite of this, Nawaz has fiercely loyal supporters. Recently, after another Liberal Democrat activist, Mohammed Shafiq, spearheaded a campaign to have Nawaz deselected as the Lib Dem Hampstead and Kilburn PPC, Nawaz’ supporters launched a petition in his favour which has accumulated more than 6000 signatures at the time of writing. What bonds Nawaz’ supporters, whether they’re atheists or theists, right wing or left wing, is their belief in and defence of liberalism.

So just who is this man, capable of infuriating religious extremists and hooligans alike? Where did he come from? And why should you listen to him? Well, put simply, because he knows what he’s talking about.

In ‘Radical’, Nawaz’ recently released autobiography, he recounts the extraordinary journey which took him from being just another teenaged, rap-loving, ‘b-boy’ in sleepy Southend to a highly dedicated recruiter for the notorious Islamic extremist organisation Hizbut Tahrir, to then subsequently found the world’s first counter-extremist think-tank, Quilliam.

'Radical' is a fascinating autobiography, telling a truly exceptional life story. But it's more than that. It's a mission statement and a case study. Nawaz' story gives us a unique insight into how a Brit, raised with Western values, can grow to deplore the country he calls home. How one can assume a supranational identity, bound not to country but to an alien ideology. 'Radical' is Nawaz' vow to once again separate that ideology from his religion. He wants to communicate that Islamism and Islam are not the same.

Islam is a religion of peace, he argues, but is being used to bind Muslims to a deceptive yet highly convincing meta-narrative calling for a caliphate. By conflating legitimate grievances regarding the effect Western foreign policy has had on Muslims in other countries with half-truths and propaganda, these recruiters have successfully established a siren call to the alienated and the angry. It is an ideology that has resonated with the disaffected and been enflamed by further Western military interventions, allowing a hegemony to be established.

Nawaz has a gift for communicating in prose. What really brings the book to life is his ability to paint a picture. Even knowing the dark path he’ll later take, it’s impossible not to sympathise with his young self when we read of the barbaric violence he witnesses at the hands of racist thugs, or the discriminatory way he is treated by the police just because he isn’t white. The young Nawaz is relatable, vulnerable, normal - which is why his decline into extremism is particularly striking. It’s striking because it’s clear that religion has little to do with why the young Maajid becomes entangled in jihad.

Whilst reading ‘Radical’ I couldn’t help but recall Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’. Dawkins identified in ‘The God Delusion’ that it is faith itself which allows extremism to breed. He argues that the very concept of faith - the willingness to accept instruction or explanation, no matter how irrational, as long as told in the name of God - creates a pliable mind, easily manipulated by extremists to further their own ends. After all, one is surely more likely to kamikaze into a building if they think they’ll be rewarded in the afterlife. I think this is a reasonable conclusion to reach, but It wasn’t until I read ‘Radical’ that I realised it’s a reductive and simple explanation. ‘Radical’ has been for me, an ‘antitheist’, what Dawkins would call a ‘consciousness raiser’.

I no longer think of the issue of extremism in black and white, in absolutes. The many shades of grey, and the many disparate components of the process of radicalisation are now visible to me. ‘Radical’ feels like the breakthrough moment of a culture shift, and I wish Maajid and his movement all the success in the world.

Chriss (Twitter: @chriss_m)

0 notes / Permalink

"In the two years that the democrats had the White House, the House, and the Senate, we got Wall Street reform, student loan reform, credit card reform, healthcare reform obviously, the fair pay act, expanding of the GI bill, they re-authorized the children’s health insurance program, expanded national service programs, fixed the sentencing disparity for crack versus powdered cocaine. We got the 9/11 first responders bill, we got the hate crimes act, they ratified the Start treaty between us and Russia on nuclear weapons, they repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, they did cash for clunkers, they did the stimulus which included the largest middle-class tax cuts ever. That was all done by the Congress that was elected at the same time as President Obama in 2008. They were elected in November 2008, sworn in January 2009 and over the next 2 years they got all of those things done. Then, the republicans did really well in the midterms, and republicans took control of the House for the first time in years and, John Boehner became Speaker. And since then, there has not been a single significant piece of legislation enacted into law."

Rachel Maddow, 9/30/13 (via alexaaact)

*head explodes*

(via wintry-mix)

Reblogged from succubolilith with 18,302 notes / Permalink

(Source: replore)

Reblogged from wantedreject with 628,144 notes / Permalink

cas-wants-the-dean:

silverlullabies:

captaincoolasfuck:

jasperbat:

coacaine:

yerawizardjordan:

glorious—headfuck:

at the time this screenshot was taken on october 5th, pornhub had raised over $3000. $3000 in 5 out of 31 days. the susan g. komen foundation declined their “dirty” donation. thousands of dollars that could save lives or at least improve them, and they wouldn’t accept the offer because of how it was raised.
ugh.


ah yes “ugh”
because nothing says “We could care less about your actual lives, and more about your breasts which we have over sexualized to hell and back through porn and other means” like exactly what pornhub fucking did.
It’s the same with the “I <3 Boobies” Campaign 
Let’s save boobs guys! Let’s save boobs so that there can be more boobs in our porn! Let’s basically only give a shit because boobs lol!

Pretty sure people suffering from cancer don’t give a flying fuck about where funding for research comes from or what their motives are as long as it actually helps.

In what world is the belief that women’s breasts have been ‘over-sexualized’ suddenly more important than saving the lives of people suffering, and dying, of cancer? Is this really a pressing issue when lives are at stake? Seriously?
I’m pretty sure the guys (or girls, or whomever) that run Pornhub just happen to like breasts (like basically everyone does) and also want to *help* people—because, guess what, you can do both.

My mother is dying of Stage Four beast cancer and she says she doesn’t care as long as nobody is harmed getting the funding. She said she’d let people stare at her boobs all day if it meant finding a cure that’ll allow her to watch her granddaughter grow up. 

Bless^

I love this discussion. It shows just how fucking ludicrous ‘super liberalism’ is. ‘You’re dying and could really use that money?? So FUCKING WHAT. PEOPLE ARE BEING SEXUALISED OUT THERE. CHECK YOUR FUCKING PRIVILEGE. CAPITALIST FUCKING PIG. ALL ME ME ME.’

cas-wants-the-dean:

silverlullabies:

captaincoolasfuck:

jasperbat:

coacaine:

yerawizardjordan:

glorious—headfuck:

at the time this screenshot was taken on october 5th, pornhub had raised over $3000. $3000 in 5 out of 31 days. the susan g. komen foundation declined their “dirty” donation. thousands of dollars that could save lives or at least improve them, and they wouldn’t accept the offer because of how it was raised.

ugh.

ah yes “ugh”

because nothing says “We could care less about your actual lives, and more about your breasts which we have over sexualized to hell and back through porn and other means” like exactly what pornhub fucking did.

It’s the same with the “I <3 Boobies” Campaign 

Let’s save boobs guys! Let’s save boobs so that there can be more boobs in our porn! Let’s basically only give a shit because boobs lol!

Pretty sure people suffering from cancer don’t give a flying fuck about where funding for research comes from or what their motives are as long as it actually helps.

In what world is the belief that women’s breasts have been ‘over-sexualized’ suddenly more important than saving the lives of people suffering, and dying, of cancer? Is this really a pressing issue when lives are at stake? Seriously?

I’m pretty sure the guys (or girls, or whomever) that run Pornhub just happen to like breasts (like basically everyone does) and also want to *help* people—because, guess what, you can do both.

My mother is dying of Stage Four beast cancer and she says she doesn’t care as long as nobody is harmed getting the funding. She said she’d let people stare at her boobs all day if it meant finding a cure that’ll allow her to watch her granddaughter grow up. 

Bless^

I love this discussion. It shows just how fucking ludicrous ‘super liberalism’ is. ‘You’re dying and could really use that money?? So FUCKING WHAT. PEOPLE ARE BEING SEXUALISED OUT THERE. CHECK YOUR FUCKING PRIVILEGE. CAPITALIST FUCKING PIG. ALL ME ME ME.’

(Source: howtodresswell)

Reblogged from succubolilith with 93,981 notes / Permalink

i-have-loki-feelings:



So hi everbody! Basically, the 183 thousand sanctimonious people who retweeted this want you to know that ugly people should be wearing burqas. Cool, right?! Fight oppression!! Woo!!!!

i-have-loki-feelings:

image

So hi everbody! Basically, the 183 thousand sanctimonious people who retweeted this want you to know that ugly people should be wearing burqas. Cool, right?! Fight oppression!! Woo!!!!

Reblogged from justabrowncoatedwench with 566,106 notes / Permalink

delilahdevil:

cenobiteme:

Javier Pérez: En Puntas (2013)

Video installation of variable measurements comprising:
Sculpture: pointe shoes, stainless steel knives
Video projection: HD blu-ray, with sound, screened on a wall
9’

A ballerina, whose pointe shoes are extended by a set of sharp kitchen knives, dances and twirls insistently until reaching exhaustion, fighting to maintain balance on the lid of a grand piano set on a stage.  The theatre with its red velvet warm lighting, resembles an oversized music box. The camera turns around the dancer revealing the opposite side of the room: an empty and painfully bare theatre.

The ballerina appears as an eerie figure expressing effort, sacrifice and pain in her strive for perfection. Both fragile and cruel. Initially shy and hesitant, her steps become more and more emphatic, menacing and not exempt of violence, scraping and cutting into the delicate surface of the piano with her sharp pointe shoes.

Through this work, Javier Perez investigates and reflects once again upon the human condition. Using a strongly metaphorical language rich in powerful symbolism, he reveals the weaknesses that become the boundaries between seemingly irreconcilable concepts such as: beauty and cruelty, fragility and violence, culture and nature or life and death.

watch the video performance

The video is actually terrifying omg

(Source: myampgoesto11)

Reblogged from senjukannon with 122,555 notes / Permalink

A P P L A U S E 

A P P L A U S E 

9 notes / Permalink

Lady Gaga practicing ‘The Abramovic Method’ (x)

(Source: rappersdigest)

Reblogged from hotnun with 1,128 notes / Permalink

Poker Face and Pierrot: Lady Gaga’s sad clown

gaganalysis:

image

image

image

image

It’s now confirmed that Gaga’s artwork for Applause directly references Pierrot the clown.

Pierrot, a character from the Commedia Dell’arte style of 16th century Italian theater, is the iconic “sad clown” recognizable from many forms of media and performances over time. 

image

Throughout history, and in various incarnations, Pierrot has worn baggy white pantaloons, ruffled collars, a dunce cap or black skull cap, and is always in white face makeup. 

Pierrot represented the outsider, a naive lover, and fool. He was in love with Columbina, who left him for Harlequin, another recognizable character from history. Harlequin was the entertainer, clever and charismatic, even magical at times, able to persuade audiences with trickery. 

image

Read More

Reblogged from gaganalysis with 1,100 notes / Permalink

It gets better.

But seriously. The picture of Madonna ripping off Marilyn Monroe looks nothing like the Gaga picture. This Madonna bullshit is so fucking boring, and she bears some blame for stoking the fire for publicity.

It gets better.

But seriously. The picture of Madonna ripping off Marilyn Monroe looks nothing like the Gaga picture. This Madonna bullshit is so fucking boring, and she bears some blame for stoking the fire for publicity.

(Source: mcqueenlovesme)

Reblogged from boobsoverbrains with 93 notes / Permalink

Maybe I’ll write a book.

0 notes / Permalink

AHA. AHAHAHAHAHAHHFASKJFHGAKHFGKFKGSDFKGSDFKHGSDFKHDSK. SOCIETY, WHICH MARKETS LIFE AS IF IT WERE A FUCKING TEENAGE DREAM KILLED THE TEENAGER. BLAHAHAHAHAHAHA. JUST WAIT UNTIL YOU&#8217;RE IN YOUR 20&#8217;S AND THE WHOLE WORLD DOESN&#8217;T REVOLVE AROUND YOU.

AHA. AHAHAHAHAHAHHFASKJFHGAKHFGKFKGSDFKGSDFKHGSDFKHDSK. SOCIETY, WHICH MARKETS LIFE AS IF IT WERE A FUCKING TEENAGE DREAM KILLED THE TEENAGER. BLAHAHAHAHAHAHA. JUST WAIT UNTIL YOU’RE IN YOUR 20’S AND THE WHOLE WORLD DOESN’T REVOLVE AROUND YOU.


Reblogged from pandorasprincessx with 37 notes / Permalink