Scholars of totalitarianism talk about the importance of this

Host: The quiet of the evening filled the room, providing space for deep reflection. Jack sat at the table, his fingers lightly resting on his cup, reflecting on Masha Gessen’s words. Jeeny stood near the window, her gaze directed outward as she considered the meaning behind the statement.

Jeeny: “I’ve been thinking about what Masha Gessen said: ‘Scholars of totalitarianism talk about the importance of this constant movement, this forever war, this need to do battle on behalf of something that needs protection. In Russia, this something has been postulated as faith and traditional values.’ It’s such an insightful commentary on how totalitarian regimes create a sense of perpetual struggle—a need for constant conflict, even if it’s manufactured. The idea of always being in a battle for something that needs protection, like faith or values, is a powerful tool for maintaining power.”

Jack: “Yes, exactly. Gessen is showing us that totalitarian regimes don’t just control the people through fear or force—they do it through creating an ongoing narrative of victimization and struggle. The constant need for war, for a sense of threat, keeps people in a state of tension and fear. It justifies the regime’s power and its control over the population. And the something they claim to be protecting, like faith or traditional values, is often more of a tool to create loyalty and obedience, rather than something genuinely at risk.”

Jeeny: “Right. It’s not about actual threats—it’s about manufacturing the idea of a threat, so people feel like they’re constantly in a fight to protect their way of life. By making faith and traditional values central to the regime’s narrative, they create a sense of moral superiority. The government becomes the protector of these values, and in doing so, it gives itself the power to control how people live and think. Gessen is pointing to how this perpetual battle becomes a defining characteristic of totalitarianism.”

Host: The stillness in the room grew as they both reflected on how fear and a sense of constant conflict can be used to maintain control over a population. Jack’s fingers rested on the table, while Jeeny’s expression softened, considering how such a narrative can trap a society in a cycle of tension and obedience.

Jack: “It makes me think about how often we’re fed these narratives of perpetual crisis, whether it’s about culture, values, or safety. Leaders who create the illusion of constant threats can manipulate people into thinking they need protection, even if those threats are largely imaginary. By framing things as a war—whether ideological, cultural, or political—it creates a sense of urgency and loyalty to the leader. It’s a way to keep the population in line, always ready to defend against a perceived enemy.”

Jeeny: “Exactly. And it’s a distraction as much as it is a control mechanism. People are so focused on the constant need to fight for these ‘values’ or ‘faith’ that they lose sight of the bigger picture. The regime doesn’t want people thinking critically or questioning authority—it wants them distracted by the idea of protection and battle. This idea that the government is safeguarding something vital, like tradition or faith, keeps the population invested in supporting it, even at the cost of their own freedom.”

Jack: “And I think what Gessen is highlighting is the importance of awareness. In these regimes, we have to ask ourselves: what’s actually being protected? What’s being justified by the constant war or struggle? It’s not always about defending values; it’s about power and control. The battle isn’t real—it’s a manufactured story meant to keep people in check.”

Jeeny: “Exactly. And it’s about how these narratives are constructed and sold to the public. The regime makes people feel like they’re part of something important, something that’s under siege, and therefore they feel obligated to defend it. But what’s really happening is that their freedom is being taken away, all while they’re convinced they’re protecting something sacred. Gessen is showing us that this perpetual struggle isn’t about what’s being fought for—it’s about keeping the power.”

Host: The quiet in the room deepened as they both considered the ways in which fear, manipulation, and control are central to maintaining a totalitarian regime. Masha Gessen had shown them how the narrative of constant conflict and protection of values is used to keep people in line, often obscuring the true motives behind the power. Jack leaned back slightly in his chair, while Jeeny’s gaze turned from the window back to him, both of them understanding the deeper implications of Gessen’s statement.

Jack: “So, Gessen is really showing us that in totalitarian regimes, the constant war isn’t just about protecting something real. It’s about creating the illusion of danger so the government can keep control. It doesn’t matter if there’s a real threat—it matters that people are made to feel like they need to be protected at all costs.”

Jeeny: “Exactly. It’s about control through the narrative of crisis. The idea of a battle or a struggle keeps people distracted and loyal, even if the actual fight is against their own freedom. What’s important is that people recognize this manipulation, that they see through the constant narratives of war and start questioning who’s really benefiting from it.”

Host: The evening had fully settled in, the quiet understanding between them a reminder that narratives of fear and struggle are powerful tools for maintaining control, especially in totalitarian regimes. Masha Gessen had shown them that the use of perpetual conflict to justify power and control is a dangerous cycle that often hides the true intentions of those in power. The world outside had darkened, but inside, there was light—a recognition that awareness and critical thinking are essential for recognizing manipulation and protecting freedom.