Dictators fall when they're overconfident; they stay in power when they're paranoid.
Masha GessenRead
When totalitarian regimes are established, they at least have the illusion of the single-minded purpose. But once they establish the stature that's necessary for a totalitarian regime, they tend to flail.
Interpretation
Totalitarian regimes may present a united front initially, but they often struggle to maintain control over time.
This quote by Masha Gessen highlights the fundamental contradictions of totalitarian regimes. While they may initially create an appearance of cohesion and purpose, as these regimes solidify their power, they often face internal strife and chaos. This suggests that authoritarian control can lead to a disconnect between the regime's pretensions of unity and the reality of governance, revealing vulnerabilities that may ultimately lead to their downfall.
In practice
Discussing the nature of governance in a political science class.
Dictators fall when they're overconfident; they stay in power when they're paranoid.
When you lose your freedom, you lose, first and foremost, the opportunity to choose the company you keep.
There's the hypothesis that things just keep happening to Russians, things that keep turning them into the same kind of subjects, as opposed to citizens. The more credible hypothesis, I think, is that there is a kind of trauma, a social trauma that is passed on from generation to generation.
We learn to think of history as something that has already happened, to other people. Our own moment, filled as it is with minutiae destined to be forgotten, always looks smaller in comparison.
Russia, at the start of the 21st century, at least in its larger cities, very much resembled the United States of the early 1990s: being gay was no longer criminal or shameful, but it was still not a topic for polite conversation or public discussion.
... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there-because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don't think it should exist.
If we do not allow free thinking in chemistry or biology, why should we allow it in morals or politics?
This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.
What God requires of us he himself works in us, or it is not done. He that commands faith, holiness, and love, creates them by the power of his grace going along with his word, that he may have all the praise.
As for doing good; that is one of the professions which is full. Moreover I have tried it fairly and, strange as it may seem, am satisfied that it does not agree with my constitution.
Time is the most undefinable yet paradoxical of things; the past is gone, the future is not come, and the present becomes the past, even while we attempt to define it.
A message came from my youth of vanished days, saying, 'I wait for you among the quivering of unborn May, where smiles ripen for tears and hours ache with songs unsung.' It says, 'Come to me across the worn-out track of age, through the gates of death. For dreams fade, hopes fail, the fathered fruits of the year decay, but I am the eternal truth, and you shall meet me again and again in your voyage of life from shore to shore.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.