Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as Nazi

Most Controversial Fashion Choices Made By the Royal Family

Prominent members of the British royal family have become pillars for fashion trends, especially the younger generation.But with a set royal dress code they are supposed to follow, its no surprise they get it wrong sometimes and raise eyebrows in the process.
From Kate Middletons fly-away skirt to Prince Harrys bad costume choice, heres a look at 15 of the most controversial fashion choices
Next: Last but not least 15. Kates repeat ensemblePrince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge arrive at Los Angeles | Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)Constantly having eyes on what youre wearing means sporting a new ensemble every time you step in front of the camera.
But Duchess Catherine has bucked that trend by sporting the same lilac Roksanda dress on multiple occasions. Not only does the dress look great on her, but it shows that even royal have favorite pieces they like to wear on repeat regardless of what the royal fashion rules are.
Check out The Cheat Sheet on ! 2019 The Cheat Sheet, All Rights Reserved.About UsArchiveJobsContact UsTerms of UsePrivacy Policy.

Please follow and like us:

What’s wrong with ‘cultural Marxism’?

It’s cultural Marxism week at Spectator USA. The dialectic of Enlightenment, prodded by the Angel of History, has forced us to confront the false.
The dialectic of Enlightenment, prodded by the Angel of History, has forced us to confront the false consciousness of late capitalism and to choose between Eros and Civilization, socialism and fascism. Yay!If that sounds like drivel, it’s because it is.The meaningless bits in the previous paragraph are meaningful phrases in the mad Marxist dreamland of laugh-a-minute lefties Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Theodore Adorno, and that other one that Adorno wrote TheDialectic of Enlightenment with. Collectively known as the Frankfurt School, because between the world wars most of them worked at the Institute for Social Research, a Marxist think tank in Frankfurt.

The Frankfurt School invented the intellectual pestilences now known as Cultural Studies and Media Studies. They called their method Critical Theory or Social Theory.The gist of their interminable argument is that the reason the proles don’t join the revolution is that their thick heads are blunted by capitalist culture and sexual repression. If this sounds familiar, it’s because the New Left took it up, then populated the universities of America with vulgar Frankfurters whose pretentious, chippy warbling, instead of pulling down the boss class, has crushed enrollments in the Humanities, and produced generations of replicant professors who know nothing about their subjects, and not much about Marx and Freud either.
For the Nazis, the Frankfurter School and its vaguely Jewish exponents fell under the rubric of Kulturbolshewismus, Cultural Bolshevism’. You can see why the Nazis might have thought this.But you probably wouldn’t characterize the Frankfurter style in your local English department as Cultural Bolshevism, because that would imply an endorsement of Nazi social theory. For the same reason, Americans now say people of color’, because colored people’ evokes the social theories of Jim Crow.
And while we’re about it, we need an alternative to the phrase ethnic cleansing’, which has Soviet and Nazi origins. Here, the Frankfurters were right about the inadvertent consequences of speaking the language of tyranny in the name of freedom.Which brings us to Jordan Peterson and cultural Marxism’. Peterson uses cultural Marxism’ as shorthand for left-wing ideology in the Humanities.So does Douglas Kellner, a professional third-generation Frankfurter at UCLA; see Kellner’s potted history of the whole tedious business, Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies’. And so did the Frankfurt School.
The phrase cultural Marxism’ might even precede the Frankfurt School. Marx had applied his ideas to culture; the germ of false consciousness’ theory lurks in Marx’s reflections on the French revolution of 1848 and his report on the Great Exhibition of 1851.The Frankfurters certainly didn’t invent the idea of a comprehensive Marxism of culture, either. The key ideas arose in the aftermath of World War One, from the Hungarian literary critic Georg Lukcs, and the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci.It was Gramsci who adopted the dreaded term hegemony’, probably from Lenin, and devised the strategy now known as the long march through the institutions’.The problem is that in the 1980s, a hostile theory of cultural Marxism’ developed on the right, and then spread right over the edge.
William Lind of the American Conservative and the Free Congress Foundationseems to have beencentral to popularizing the idea that multiculturalism and Political Correctness’ were the latest face of the Gramsci-Lukacs-Frankfurt program to destroy Western culture and the Christian religion’ by mobilizing what Marcuse called a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals’.As with the Nazis’ Kulturbolshewismus meme, you can see what Lind is talking about, even if you dislike what he means.
The idea of political correctness’ has impeccably communist origins. The ideal of multiculturalism’ emerged from the Third-Worldist mood of 1960s’ Marxism-Leninist-Maoism.
But these are not coherent programs, and their subscribers, who struggle to organize a faculty meeting, don’t operate in organized terms. For Lind, however, the dots add up.Using Frankfurt theory against itself, Lind claims that the cultural Marxists brainwash us: Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like normalize homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood).’All the names on Lind’s list of conspirators against the West and Christianity happen to be of Jewish background: Freud, Lukacs, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and the man behind the curtain old Karl Marx’. In 2002, Lind even advanced his conspiracy theory before a receptive audience of Holocaust deniers.These guys were all Jewish,’ he said. Anders Breivik, the Norwegian neo-Nazi who massacred 77 people in 2011, pasted long sections Victoria, a novel of race-war against all in which white Christians expel the black population of Atlanta.Since the late 1990s, cultural Marxism’ has filtered into the mainstream from the racist alt-right. While a tiny number of academics have been one-upping each other with quotations from Lukcs and Adorno, millions of online racists have redefined its public meaning.
More recently, no one has been more influential in spreading its mainstream, non-racist use than Jordan Peterson.I think that Peterson, who has spent most of his life on campus in the Frankfurter-rich field of psychology, missed the fringe redefinition of cultural Marxism’, understood cultural Marxism’ in its original, Frankfurter sense when he started throwing it about.I also think that Peterson should have known better by 2016, when he posted a link on to a Daily Caller story titled Cultural Marxism is Destroying America’. Its opening sentence was: ‘Yet again an American city is being torn apart by black rioters.’ The author of this and more than 20 other Daily Caller articles was the pseudonymous ‘Moses Apostaticus’. In 2018, Jane Coaston of Vox exposed him as anti-Semitic conspiracist David Hilton.
This is the context in which I first read the words cultural Marxism’ in the early 2000s. Not from Marxist theory in the ivory tower, but from online conspiracy theorists.It had already become a buzzword for racists who have never heard of The Dialectic of Enlightenment. That is why I have never used it, even when attacking the influence of Frankfurt theory in the academy.
A neutral and more accurate term would be neo-Marxism’.Let’s face it: cultural Marxism’ hasn’t floated into common parlance among conservatives because they’ve suddenly developed a taste for the cod-Baudelaire musings of Walter Benjamin.It’s floated in from the racist fringe on the Internet, the same fringe from which terms like Zio’ have floated into left-wing parlance. This week, the Conservative MP Suella Braverman used cultural Marxism’ in a speech to a Euroskeptic think tank, the Bruges Group: As Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigeur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.’Braverman is the brown-skinned child of immigrants from Goa and Kenya. She has a Jewish husband.
I am certain that she didn’t mean to invoke an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, or to render it kosher by alluding to it in respectable society. She was only speaking in memes, as politicians have to do, especially conservatives hoping to catch the Peterson crowd.
And it’s impossible to disagree with Braverman’s analysis, or her suggestion that some of the ongoing creep of cultural Marxism’ comes from that ongoing creep Jeremy Corbyn, whose long march through the institutions has been succored by online racism and conspiracy theorizing. But I’d be fascinated to know where a decent person like Braverman learnt to summarize her analysis in the catch-all cultural Marxism’.I imagine that when she apologizes, she’ll attribute it to false consciousness.Dominic Green is Life Arts Editor of Spectator USA.

Please follow and like us:

The most dangerous place in the world

On the eve of his visit to South Asia in March 2000, American President Bill Clinton referred to the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir as “the most dangerous place in the world”.
This was not an exaggeration but recognition of the fact that the Kashmir dispute, made even more volatile by the popular Kashmiri uprising against the Indian occupation, could escalate into war between two nuclear weapon states.The recent Pulwama incident has once again raised the spectre of war between Pakistan and India which can, either through intention or accident, lead to the use of nuclear weapons.Therefore, Kashmir still remains the most dangerous place in the world and it is incumbent on all sides to act responsibly in order to avoid Armageddon.The Pulwama attack in which more than 40 Indian paramilitary troops were killed by a young Kashmiri, Adil Ahmad Dar, who had been tortured by Indian forces  should not come as a surprise.For more than seven decades, India has resorted to brute force to put down the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination.
Indian failure is not just due to the brave resilience of the Kashmiri people but also due to the escalating levels of Indian brutality that has made the Kashmiri resolve even stronger.Despite the presence of more than 700,000 Indian troops armed with draconian powers, nearly 90,000 casualties, use of indiscriminate killings, torture, rape, illegal detentions, and disappearances as instruments of policy, India has failed to intimidate the Kashmiris.
Now, an entirely new generation has taken up the struggle, including children in their teens. Even they have not been spared from the cowardly Indian use of indiscriminate firepower including pellet guns that have blinded and maimed hundreds of them.No wonder Kashmiri youth like Dar are ready to sacrifice their lives to exact revenge on their tormentors.All Indian governments since 1947 have refused to recognise the reality that Kashmiris do not want to be a part of India.
Instead they have blamed Pakistan for promoting “terrorism” in Kashmir.The Modi government of Hindu chauvinists and extremists has taken this repressive charade to an even lower level  seeking a Nazi-type fascist solution in Kashmir by settlement of Hindus in the Muslim majority valley to change its demographic character.Viewed from this perspective, the Indian allegations of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in occupied Kashmir are hollow. The Kashmiris are fighting for themselves and do not need persuasion from Pakistan.
Some Indian political and military leaders now acknowledge this fact.In terms of international legal norms, the UN Charter and several UN resolutions recognise not only the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under foreign occupation and alien domination to wage an armed struggle for their freedom and realisation of the right of self-determination, as is the case of the Kashmiris, but also draw a clear distinction between terrorism and the legitimate struggle for self-determination.
Therefore, the Kashmiris are not engaged in terrorism but a legitimate struggle for their inalienable right to self-determination.Unfortunately, however, in the realm of realpolitik, international law and principles are only relevant when they suit the powerful — as in East Timor or South Sudan, but not Kashmir or Palestine.
After 9/11, America’s war on terror has essentially targeted all Muslims as terrorists even if they are involved in a just and legitimate struggle under international law.India was quick to seize this opportunity by fully aligning with the US and Israel to project Muslims as terrorists, including of course the Kashmiris.
False flag operations carried out by Indian security forces and ‘Sarkari’ militants have been blamed on the Kashmiris and Pakistan.The Americans, instead of determining the truth, are just happy to have India join them in the fight against ‘Islamist terrorism’.

Today, this is even truer of Trump and his crowd of bigoted anti-Muslims who have found a fellow fascist in Modi. No wonder Trump says he is “a great fan of Hindu”.This has added to the prevailing dangers of an Indo-Pakistan conflict. Modi and his Hindutva cohorts, who have already created mass hysteria against Pakistan and Kashmiris, are now braying for blood to avenge the Pulwama attack.Forthcoming Indian elections make Modi even more desperate to be seen as being muscular.Apart from threatening to ‘isolate’ Pakistan and withdrawing the MFN status, military options are being explored.American support for Indian allegations against Pakistan could make India even more adventurous in its actions.Despite all this Indian bravado, it will have to be cold hard logic that will determine Indian response.‘Isolating’ Pakistan has already been tried and failed.Withdrawal of the MFN status is meaningless given the low volume of bilateral trade, and in any case Indian non-tariff barriers have already stunted Pakistani exports to India.While sponsoring terrorist attacks is possible, any ‘surgical strike’, like the last one, would be more of a sham.Heavy artillery or air strikes are also possible.Then there is the much-hyped ‘Cold Start’ type limited military operations option. But the Indians are fully aware of Pakistan’s Full Spectrum deterrence doctrine and it remains to be seen whether they will risk testing it.

Prime Minister Imran Khan has already assured them that Pakistan will surely respond. Significantly, former Indian generals like General DS Hooda, former head of the Northern Command, and in whose tenure the so-called surgical strike was carried out, has suggested caution and hoped for ‘rethinking and reconciliation’ from all sides.Owing to these factors, the only realistic option for India is to seek a sustainable solution to the Kashmir dispute through dialogue with Pakistan and the Kashmiris.As their American allies have learned in Afghanistan, there is no military solution to such problems.
Only then can Kashmir cease to be the most dangerous place in the world.

Please follow and like us: