illumahottie:

officialkingofconeyisland:

The signs as:

The woman in the blue dress: Cancer, Leo

The woman in the black and white dress: Aries, Pisces

The woman in the green dress: Sagittarius, Taurus 

The woman in the purple dress: Libra, Aquarius, Capricorn

The woman that dances across the screen: Gemini, Scorpio, Virgo

I really am the virgo

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger.

Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince (pp. 49-50)

charlesoberonn:

sinner1991:

charlesoberonn:

I love it when serious economist use their free time to calculate the answers to pointless questions like

  • “How much is Earth worth on the free market?”
  • “Who’s richer, Batman or Scrooge McDuck?”
  • “How much property damage is caused by a Godzilla attack?”

It’s very important that we know this

The answers to these btw are:

  • 3 quadrillion dollars for surface only, 15.8 sextillion dollars for the whole thing
  • Scrooge McDuck
  • About 3-4 billion dollars

parisian sewer system: *exists*
victor hugo: 👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀 good shit go౦ԁ sHit👌 thats ✔ some good👌👌shit right👌👌th 👌 ere👌👌👌 right✔there ✔✔if i do ƽaү so my selｆ 💯 i say so 💯 thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷМ💯 👌👌 👌НO0ОଠＯOOＯOОଠଠOoooᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒ👌 👌👌 👌 💯 👌 👀 👀 👀 👌👌Good shit

What historical revisionism should be: Ah, yes, this is a new fact; let us see how this fits in with what we previously thought. Oh no, it does not, we should examine why and change our theory if needs be.

What historical revisionism should never be: The ignoring of attitudes of the day and the blackening of someone’s name without that context; the denial of any wrong-doing on your preferred side; the sanitisation and covering up of uncomfortable bits of history which make you question your world view.