“Citadel” is set to premiere on Prime Video on April 28.
Mumbai: Priyanka Chopra Jonas, who recently stirred a controversy with her statement on how she was cornered in Bollywood by a certain set of influential people, has explained why she decided to speak up about the incident at this juncture.
Priyanka was speaking to the media on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific press conference for the upcoming sci-fi spy thriller series “Citadel”, where she plays the lead role opposite Richard Madden.
Sharing the reason for speaking up after such a long time, she said: “First, I spoke during the podcast about my journey across my childhood, teenage years, the initial phase of my career and eventually the incident that changed a few things for me.”
She added: “I have had tumultuous times back then, but today, I feel confident to speak about it in the hope that people at large would take notice of it, empathise (with me) and understand where I’m coming from. I felt it was a safe space for me to open up about the rocky patch in my professional journey.”
“Citadel” is set to premiere on Prime Video on April 28.
Kruse: Former Trump campaign adviser Sam Nunberg told you there are only two people in the whole world whose calls Trump would take alone — Mark Burnett and Vince McMahon. And you say McMahon is likely the closest thing to a friend that Donald Trump has. Beyond the reality that Trump is a preternaturally lonely man, why do you say that?
Riesman: I talked to a lot of Republican operatives. Trump and Vince are extremely close. I think he likes to talk to Vince. I think Vince and he understand each other. I think he greatly admires and looks up to Vince. And that you can just find from his tweets — that’s something that’s very much on the record — it is a consistent picture of, you know, this is a great man, Trump referring to Vince, this is somebody who has a good philosophy, this is somebody who knows how to thrill an audience. And for better or worse, we’re shaped by our role models.
Kruse: For our readers who certainly know politics but might not know pro wrestling, what is kayfabe, rhymes with hey, babe, and what is neokayfabe? And what specifically is neokayfabe in the context of politics today?
Riesman: Kayfabe is this old multipurpose term that emerges from traveling circuses, which is where wrestling emerges from. It is all centered around the big lie of wrestling, of pro wrestling, theatrical wrestling, for the first century of its existence. And that big lie was that what you see in the ring is what you get — that it’s real, that this is a legitimate sporting competition. Everybody had to be in character. You really had to commit to it anytime you were out in public. What happens in the mid- to late ’80s is Vince takes power at his father’s company, buys it from his father, and he starts making this product that is a lot more outlandishly ridiculous in some ways than any wrestling that had come before — stuff that was just so obviously entertainment and not a sport that he started calling his product sports entertainment.
And kayfabe is basically over at that point, and wrestling sort of flounders for a number of years. It’s very difficult for the promoters in that period to get people interested because old kayfabe is gone. The suspension of disbelief isn’t there anymore. So what ends up happening, and it’s not just Vince that does it, but it’s Vince who really codifies it, is you get this phenomenon that I, perhaps vainly, have named neokayfabe. You are operating not with the assumption that what you’re seeing is real; in fact, you are operating with the very firm belief that what you were seeing is fake. But in that fakeness, a promoter or a wrestler will toss in little bits of seemingly behind-the-scenes truth, what appears to be behind-the-scenes truth, in the context of this wider lie. And that I think should hopefully sound familiar to all of us who pay attention to politics these days.
Think about Trump. He would say stuff you’re not supposed to say, and that was what everyone who loved him said about him. I mean, Frank Rich wrote a story for the magazine that I was working at about how Trump was saving our democracy — this was in 2015 — saying that he was saying what other people weren’t willing to say about how stupid this system was and maybe that would wake people up. Well, I don’t know that it woke people up to make them change the world for the better, but it certainly grabbed their attention. And that’s all that matters. That’s all that matters now. Can you grab people’s attention? And Vince figured out a while ago that a great way to grab people’s attention is just have people say the unsayable and do the unthinkable and toss out things that are true. I think the parallel is kind of obvious, and I hope that this is a moment where we can sort of wake up to the fact that the strategy of just fact-checking the other side doesn’t work. Because that’s not what fascism believes. It doesn’t believe in consistency. It doesn’t believe in all the truth or all the lie. It believes in total chaos. And that’s what we have under neokayfabe.
Kruse: The well-meaning fact checkers did not imbibe the lessons of professional wrestling in the ’80s and ’90s.
Riesman: They didn’t.
Kruse: You make the point in a number of places and in a number of ways that this is not just a Trump thing. That it is the generations of the children of the ’80s and ’90s. And that it is a both-sides-of-the-aisle phenomenon.
Riesman: Wrestling was a widespread phenomenon for millennials when we were in our impressionable teen years. I do think you have an easier time translating the ideology of neokayfabe into politics if you’re operating within a party that is really resolutely anti-truth — the Republicans now. That said, I do think the phenomenon of neokayfabe, such as it is, has infected both parties. The parties aren’t the same. I would never say that. I’m saying both parties have interests and have advantages when it comes to saying one thing, meaning another and then saying yet a third thing and meaning a fourth thing. These layers of confusion are advantageous for politicians.
Kruse: And one of the more interesting arguments in this book is the idea that the generation that grew up with wrestling is now running stuff or about to run stuff and that matters a lot. How are Republicans and Democrats both doing politics differently now because they watched Hulk Hogan in the ’80s and ’90s?
Riesman: We learned that the most important thing is entertaining people — basically the most important thing is pushing people’s buttons. And also learning that you can be a heel and be successful — you can be somebody who is hated and you can profit off that hatred.
Kruse: Attention above all else, button-pushing over policy-making …
Riesman: And success in being hated. That’s such a key part of the Trump phenomenon. People think that by hating him and tweeting about how bad he is they’re somehow stabbing against him. But that’s the same way that people thought they were making a point of taking down Vince McMahon by buying T-shirts that say “Stone Cold” because “Stone Cold” Steve Austin was Vince’s rival in a storyline. But Vince McMahon owns it. He makes all the money off the T-shirt. That’s what happens with Trump. And not just Trump. George Santos. Any number of politicians. It’s how you succeed now.
Kruse: It pays to be the heel just as much or maybe even more than it pays to be “the face.”
Riesman: Oh, I would say much more. Being the face doesn’t pay because you’re always going to have another side that reflexively hates you. You’re not going to win over the other side. Whereas if you’re a heel, you have one side loving you, and the other side you’re profiting off their hatred. It’s the only way to actually make it now.
[ad_2]
#Pro #Wrestling #Explains #Todays #GOP
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
It has become a political fashion for Hindus like Mohan Bhagwat and certain Muslim opinion-makers to either provoke Muslims or laud Hinduism to enter the good books of the RSS and BIP maharajas.
Shri Mohan Bhagwat ji keeps reminding Muslims that they are actually Hindus having Hindu ancestry. There are also some Muslim commentators who indicate their appreciation of the ancient Vedic philosophical heritage. They say that it represents universal human values which is no doubt true.
However, the intentions become suspicious in the background of the declaration of RSS-BJP leaders about India becoming a Hindu Rashtra. There is nothing substantial about such arguments; it is purely communal and keeps the nation diverted from the social and economic disaster looming large. This is common knowledge or, as they say, the new normal.
I am enlightening the RSS and the Muslims engaged in appeasement of RSS that more than 150 years ago a Muslim intellectual and one who is also accused of being the initiator of the two-nation theory, had not only claimed that he was a Hindu but also complained that the Hindus did not agree to call him a Hindu.
He is Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) founder of the great Muslim University of Aligarh. His views on this issue and on the Indian culture (not Muslim or Hindu culture) are as follows.
Sir Syed was fully aware of various shades of the word Qaum especially the distinction between its religious and political connotations. He insisted that Muslims be mindful of this distinction. In an article in 1884, he explained it. He held that the word nation always stood for communities either aligned to the descendants of some person or to some country. However, Islam abolished all “community distinctions” based on worldly considerations and replaced them with one spiritual community relationship–the relationship of the creed of Islam, “There is no God except Allah, Muhammad is His Messenger.’
All distinctions of country or colour were abolished under another declaration of the Qur’an, all believers are brothers. At the same time, he points out that Muslims should not forget that besides the spiritual brothers (Muslims). They are also in the country with other brothers of the motherland (vatani bhai) with whom we share various cultural features. Respect for the neighbor is part of our faith and this neighbourliness has extended to co-citizenship. There are two parts of this relationship regarding our co-citizen-brothers (ham-vatan bhai)-one part is of God and the other is of human relationship. Leave God’s share to God and engage with the part of human relations. Help each other in human relations related to culture and social affairs. Observe mutual love, true friendship and friendly etiquette.”
Anwar Moazzam
Anwar Moazzam is a leading Islamic and political thinker, who lives in Hyderabad.
Mexico.- The singer Juan Rivera suddenly leaves the reality show ‘House of Famous 3’, due to reasons external to the game, it is announced this afternoon on various news portals.
Juan Rivera, brother of the deceased singer Jenni Rivera, thus becomes the third participant of ‘La casa de los famosos 3’ to resign from the competition.
Without giving many details of his decision, Juan explained that his wife Brenda Rivera was facing some health complications and he needed it more than ever, this coupled with the fact that he has also felt a bad ear and has even lost his hearing.
We recommend you read:
“The end has come. I thank each one of you for letting me live this experience, and God for bringing me here. These have been very difficult moments in which you have lifted me up. I came for people to meet Juan Rivera,” Juan said in his farewell message.
Juan’s classmates in ‘La casa de los famosos 3’ listened carefully to Juan’s words and at the end some of them couldn’t help but cry.
Before Juan, a few days ago Monique Sánchez also left the Telemundo reality show, who did it for mental health reasons, she said, followed by Aristeo Cázares, who left to solve problems with his old television company.
Juan Rivera. Facebook photo
We recommend you read:
I studied Communication Sciences at the Autonomous University of Sinaloa. My experience as a journalist dates back to 1988, when I began collaborating with Grupo Acir, with Fernando Sarabia and Julieta Hernández in a show program. Then I joined Noroeste as a collaborator in the Shows section with Rolando Arenas and I stayed for almost five years. Subsequently, he became part of the newspaper El Sol del Pacífico and collaborated with Susana Cazadero in the Entertainment section for 3 years. I joined Debate de Mazatlán in 2001 to work as a reporter for Social, Culture, Shows; then I receive the opportunity, in 2012, to be Editor of the newspaper La Sirena, a position I held for three and a half years. Since the end of 2015 he has been working as a web reporter in the Debate Shows section.
see more
#Juan #Rivera #House #Famous #explains #reasons
[ad_2]
#Juan #Rivera #House #Famous #explains #reasons
( With inputs from : pledgetimes.com )
Rihanna has explained her decision to perform at this year’s Super Bowl half-time show in Glendale, Arizona, after initially turning down the opportunity in 2019.
Speaking to British Vogue, the 34-year-old performer said that while “there’s a lot of mending to be done”, she felt it was “powerful to break down those doors and have representation at such a high, high level.”
“Two Super Bowls back-to-back, you know, representing the urban community, globally. It is powerful. It sends a really strong message,” she said, referring to the 2022 half-time show featuring Dr Dre, Kendrick Lamar, Mary J Blige, Snoop Dogg and Eminem. The recent birth of her son was also a factor: “Raising a young Black man is one of the scariest responsibilities in life. You’re like, ‘What am I leaving my kids to? This is the planet they’re gonna be living on?’ All of those things really start to hit differently.”
The announcement of Rihanna’s performance in September 2022 had been met with surprise from fans. She had previously declined the opportunity in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick, who alleged that he had been blackballed by the NFL due to his protests against racial injustice.
Unpacking her decision to stand in solidarity with Kaepernick in 2019, Rihanna explained that she “couldn’t be a sellout,” saying: “I couldn’t be an enabler. There’s things within that organisation that I do not agree with at all, and I was not about to go and be of service to them in any way.”
Elsewhere in the interview, Rihanna discussed her plans for new music, saying that she’d like to release a new album this year – her six-years-in-the-making follow-up to 2017’s Anti. “I have my ideas in my head, but I can’t say them out loud yet,” she said. “It’d be ridiculous if it’s not this year. But I just want to have fun. I just want to make music and make videos.”
Rihanna’s Super Bowl performance was widely praised, with the Guardian’s Adrian Horton describing the show as “a reminder of just how many immediately recognisable, still banging songs Rihanna delivered between the years 2007 and 2016.” Morwenna Ferrier, writing on the musician’s surprise pregnancy reveal, said that Rihanna was “past making a fashion statement. She took ownership of her body, and she did it in real time.”
[ad_2]
#Rihanna #explains #decision #reverse #Super #Bowl #boycott
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )