A decade ago, the very idea of being able to hire a celebrity would have been deemed laughable. For so long, Hollywood A-Lister's, iconic musicians, and legendary sportspeople have lived and worked in their own "celebrity bubble." Loyal fans would wait in their masses to catch a brief glance of their idol. Queuing for hours on end, whatever the weather for a quick sighting of their own personal demagogue. All a bit ridiculous if you ask me, but whatever floats your boat.
Milošević’s rise to power deserves careful scrutiny, not only because it has long served as the dominant narrative of these historical events, but because it reflects the broader power-structure of socialist states in general. Despite Milošević’s prominence in European history, his rise to power is widely contested and shrouded in mystery. Traditional historians argue that Milošević rose to power due to the broad appeal of his centrist political program. Revisionist historians have challenged this view. They believe it was Milošević s populist charisma and nationalist appeal that enabled him to both gain and maintain power. In the upcoming paper, I am going to analyze how Milošević gained and maintained control over Serbia. Firstly, I am going examine Milošević’s rise to power. Discussing the context of post-Tito Yugoslavia, the catalyst of Kosovo and the charisma of Milošević. I am then going to discuss how Milošević maintained control over Serbia. Firstly, I will analyze how Milošević manipulated the media in order to facilitate his fear and victimhood rhetoric. I will then discuss Milošević’s rejection of the Rambouillet Formula; an event which epitomizes his overall strategy for maintaining power. Though I will be tackling Milošević’s rise and maintenance of power separately. The general trends of opportunism and ethnic nationalism remain prevalent throughout both sections.
What were the reasons for and consequences of the split between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union in 1948?
To acolytes of Fascist ideology, the First World War served to reiterate their deep-seated belief that Liberal Democracy was essentially antiquated. They believed a heavily nationalistic, autocratic form of authoritarianism was required to transmogrify Europe; redefining the traditional constructs of social order in the process. Michael Mann in his book ‘Fascists’ discusses the rise of right wing authoritarianism through his IEMP model, this model refers to the means and distributions of social power; Ideological, Economic, Military and Political. I will be drawing upon the Mann’s IEMP model to coherently discuss the role that fear of the revolutionary left played in the proliferation of Fascism during the 20th century.
‘Political Correctness’ is in itself conceptually illusive; and has transmogrified from its 1920’s German Marxist Roots. It’s abstract character and vast encompassment has left the phrase open to manipulation; with certain societal groups commandeering the ‘PC’ label for opportunistic motive. On the face of it; a code of ethics seeking to avoid offense and disbenefit to certain societal groups seems harmless, moral and almost altruistic. The reality however is more complex than that. Whilst the tenets of Political Correctness may be to preserve the feelings of others, the reality is that we’ve now switched off from the important topics altogether. Those who are prone to a conspiracy theory or two may even conclude that our avoidance of these ethical and moral dilemmas may play right into the establishment’s hands?
The relentless momentum of Corbynism displayed during the 2017 General Election campaign has all but dissipated, Labour’s opposition to the Conservatives is lackluster at best, and most notably of all; Jeremy Corbyn is wholly unelectable… or this is what the press would have us believe.