Top 270 Regimes Quotes & Sayings

There was a huge lack of freedom in communist regimes, but at least they had humanity at the center of their thinking.

I've gone on workout regimes, but I seem to have a system that is very resistant to changing.

The developed world should neither shelter nor militarily destabilize authoritarian regimes unless those regimes represent an imminent threat to the national security of other states. Developed states should instead work to create the conditions most favorable for a closed regime's safe passage through the least stable segment of the J curve however and whenever the slide toward instability comes. And developed states should minimize the risk these states pose the rest of the world as their transition toward modernity begins.

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

I've always been fascinated by totalitarian regimes. I'm not an admirer of them.

Yet optimism is in order, because day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not-at-all-fragile flower. From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than 30 years to establish their legitimacy. But none - not one regime - has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.

People who speak up for freedom in regimes that are repressive are often at threat.

It was very depressing to realize that, when looking around for regimes that have systematically corrupted science within the past century or so, three stood out quite distinctly, head and shoulders above the rest of the herd: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, and Bush’s America. At times when working on the three relevant chapters, I had to remind myself which chapter was the one in front of me: the parallels between the three regimes, in terms of their vigorous attempts to trample honest science underfoot, are as horrifically close as that.

The Egyptian experience suggests that social media can greatly accelerate the death of already dying authoritarian regimes.

All military regimes use security as the reason why they should remain in power. It's nothing original.

I'm fascinated by the ways people under repressive regimes still manage to share information - and joy.

To know what Fascism really is we must first of all know what it is we are fighting, what the Fascist regimes really are and do, who puts up the money and backs Fascism in every country, and who owns the nations under such regimes, and why the natives of all Fascist countries must be driven into harder work, less money, reduced standards of living, poverty and desperation so that the men and corporations who found, subsidize and own Fascism can grow unbelievably rich.

Dictators aren't stupid, or regimes could be toppled easily by young people mobilizing on Facebook.

The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States.

Like most guys, I don't come to beauty regimes naturally. I'm dragged kicking and screaming by the best in the world.

It is human nature that rules the world, not governments and regimes.

Only communist regimes have churned out more jargon than modern business.

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

I have been through various fitness regimes. I used to run about five miles a day and I did aerobics for a while.

I'm rubbish - I'm really not good at my beauty regimes.

Advances in the technology of telecommunications have proved an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere.

Though there are some debatable exceptions, sanctions rarely play a significant role in dislodging or constraining the behavior of despicable regimes.

We need a more complex understanding of writers working under authoritarian or repressive regimes. Something to replace this simpleminded, Cold War-ish equation in which the dissident in exile is seen as a bold figure, and those who choose to work with restrictions on their freedom are considered patsies for repressive governments. Let's not forget that most writers in history have lived under nondemocratic regimes: Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Goethe didn't actually enjoy constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech.

The United States has given frequent and enthusiastic support to the overthrow of democracy in favor of "investor friendly" regimes. The World Bank, IMF, and private banks have consistently lavished huge sums on terror regimes, following their displacement of democratic governments, and a number of quantitative studies have shown a systematic positive relationship between U.S. and IMF / World Bank aid to countries and their violations of human rights.

We know that the African regimes, many African regimes have failed their people and many Africans want regime change, and there are a lot of African leaders who make promises but don't carry them out. I mean, the progress - I mean, it is noble for the rich countries to help Africa, but then the question is: What are African leaders themselves doing to help their own people?

Few times in history do totalitarian or authoritarian regimes successfully repress their people for more than two generations, and zero times in history do these regimes last much longer than that, relatively speaking.

The free world led by the U.S. fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights.

Nothing protects women from the patriarchy of military regimes.

The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want.

Muslims have been subjected to so many tyrants and oppressive regimes. That's what the Arab Spring was about, but the problem comes in trying to direct a revolution.

There is no need to give in to the compromise that totalitarian regimes always count on.

Rogue regimes never respond to anything less than hardball.

Unfortunately, history suggests that dictatorial regimes can withstand years, even decades, of economic sanctions.

There are no black holes in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.

The Fed has become an accomplice in the support of totalitarian regimes throughout the world.

A lot of Arabs have proven to themselves that there is an alternative to Bin Laden-ism if they want to do away with the corrupt, autocratic regimes in their countries.

The history of totalitarian regimes is reflected in the evolution and perfection of the instruments of terror and more especially the police.

It's important to credit the brave people that take chances to stand up to regimes. They're the star.

Trade, tourism, cultural exchange, and participation in international institutions all serve to erode the legitimacy of repressive regimes.

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

There is also poetry written to be shouted in a square in front of an enthusiastic crowd. This occurs especially in countries where authoritarian regimes are in power.

The dead-enders are still with us, those remnants of the defeated regimes who'll go on fighting long after their cause is lost.

Non-democratic regimes always need to mobilize their people against external enemies in order to maintain internal stability.

Regimes are modes of self-discipline, but are not solely constituted by the orderings of convention in day-to-day life; they are personal habits, organised in some part according to social conventions, but also formed by personal inclinations and dispositions. Regimes are of central importance to self-identity precisely because they connect habits with aspects of the visible appearance of the body.

Osama bin Laden fervently hoped that attacking the United States would create pressure on American leaders to reduce their support for Middle Eastern regimes. Bin Laden believed that without that American support, the Arab regimes would collapse and would be replaced by Taliban-style rulers.

Anyone who thinks that the Communist regimes of Central Europe are exclusively the work of criminals is overlooking a basic truth: The criminal regimes were made not by criminals but by enthusiasts convinced they had discovered the only road to paradise. They defended that road so valiantly that they were forced to execute many people. Later it became clear that there was no paradise, that the enthusiasts were therefore murderers.

Vladimir Putin is creating an axis of authoritarian regimes that he will lead.

Regimes like the one in Russia are stabilized by the fact that they have no ideology. There is really no ideological means to attack them.

Bribing regimes to comply with requirements which they should have acknowledged in the first place is not a process that appeals to me.

Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.

More people have been killed by totalitarian regimes, during times of peace, than in all the wars in the world combined.

If we look at history, we will see that regimes which persecute [their people] do not remain standing.

Morality crusades unite military regimes and religious zealots alike.

There is an absolutely fundamental hostility on the part of totalitarian regimes toward religion.

Liberals and international diplomats (a distinction without a difference) have notorious difficulty understanding how to deal with totalitarian regimes.

I've opposed black regimes and white regimes, leftist regimes and rightist regimes. I'm close to Aristide because I have respect for him, but all that is beside the point.

Regimes may fall and fail, but I do not.

One should not ascribe the evil deeds of individual leaders or political regimes to an innate fault of the Russian people and their country.

Repressive regimes do not endure change willingly - and Venezuela is no exception.

Social media now make it easier to organize protest movements, even - or perhaps especially - in authoritarian regimes.