Quotes About Regimes

We have tried to change regimes through a variety of means - over 80 times, by some estimates. Many of these efforts were counterproductive to U.S. interests.

Various people have explained why Henry Kissinger is a bad choice to run an investigation into what went wrong on Sept. 11. He's a liar. He's an apologist for corrupt regimes.

regimes of the twentieth century depended not just on repression and control of the populace but on the active construction of national myth. Here the state leaders adopt the role of wise, courageous patriarchs who bravely resist decadent and predatory foreign influence, while the self-sacrifice expected of citizens is celebrated with heroic images and narratives. The state becomes the source of moral virtue.

Socialism invariably leads to economic disaster and often to the government slaughter of its citizens. Even under less severe forms of socialism, regimes live off their nation's wealth that was accumulated before socialist control, until they inevitably squander it.7

He knew that now, and a cold corner of his brain wondered why so few repressive regimes seemed to realize that they themselves created the rebels who must ultimately destroy them.

but it's been my observation that justice is conspicuous by its absence when it comes to politics and entrenched, self-serving regimes.

Still, the more profound and prophetic stance on the right has been Adams's: cede the field of the public, if you must, but stand fast in the private. Allow men and women to become democratic citizens of the state; make sure they remain feudal subjects in the family, the factory, and the field. The priority of conservative political argument has been the maintenance of private regimes of power—even at the cost of the strength and integrity of the state.

In a time in which Communist regimes have been rightfully discredited and yet alternatives to neoliberal capitalist societies are unwisely dismissed, I defend the fundamental claim of Marxist theory: there must be countervailing forces that defend people's needs against the brutality of profit driven capitalism.

One of the most perplexing political questions of the late 20th century is how new democracies should punish deposed dictators and their associates. Victims cry for justice, but leaders of new regimes must decide to what extent it is possible, moral or prudent to pursue evildoers of the past.

It seems to be that when these communist regimes take over - if you look at the example of Vietnam or Cambodia or Nicaragua - that even in conditions of peace they don't seem to be able to figure out how to support their people, and the human suffering is enormous.

I could see that between the two regimes, the Pahlavis must now seem infinitely preferable to the reality of the Islamic Republic. If oppression is a dish that must be served with a side order, then let it be glamour and excess rather than religion and hypocrisy.

the justice of Christ breaks in and fragments the systems of the world, its philosophy, ecclesial structures legal rules–in short, the earthly economies and regimes.

The internet, Facebook and Twitter have created mass communications and social spaces that regimes cannot control.

Turning points in human consciousness occur when new energy regimes converge with new communications revolutions, creating new economic eras.

no one here ever took the work of Karl Marx or Friedrich Nietzsche or Sigmund Freud seriously. So there had been no Lenin, no Soviet Union, no communism or fascism; and two hundred million people who, elsewhere, had been killed by those regimes, had not been killed here.

Self-pity makes tyrants, it's the defining characteristic of brutal regimes

More problematic, in retrospect—in fact, I would now say, flat wrong, recklessly so—was the presumption that such regimes, like Nazism, had an insatiable appetite for expansion, which they were determined to satisfy by military aggression where necessary and feasible.

The press is the only profession protected in the Constitution because of how important the framers viewed the press. But in authoritarian regimes, they control the press.

One of the strange things about violent and authoritarian regimes is they don't like the glare of negative publicity.

Don Pepe was a Mexican man: a fatalist. He meant to impart much more than comfort. He meant that all good things would also end. All joy would crumble. And death would visit each and every one of them. He meant that regimes and ancient orders and cultures would all collapse. The world as we know it becomes a new world overnight.

The underlying reason for this is the Europeans' fear that Islamists could gain power. Many still consider authoritarian Arab regimes to be the lesser evil.

People who speak up for freedom in regimes that are oppressive are often a threat.

The crucial difference was between the regimes of the old Right, who wanted to turn the clock back to a pre-democratic elitist era, and the new Right, who seized and sustained power through the instruments of mass politics.

These radicals and liberals opposed communism precisely because Soviet-style regimes outlawed independent unions and the right to strike.