Authoritarian mimicry in plain sight. Miller’s rhetoric isn’t just cruel…it’s structurally Stalinist: dehumanize, isolate, then justify state violence as moral necessity.
Thanks for surfacing this. Behavioral clarity matters.
Hi Emmy, the transcript is already available. It just looks a bit different depending on how you’re viewing the video.
If you’re on a computer, click on the video and look for the small document or text icon at the bottom. Click that and the transcript will open on the right side. It’s viewable there, but not always the easiest to copy and paste.
If you’re on mobile, there’s a big blue Transcript button just below the video. Tap that and the transcript will replace the comment section. It’s actually much easier to copy from there.
You're assuming she has a broadband connection, which a great many of us do not.
From a point 100 meters from my house I can see the Washington Monument and National Cathedral with my bare eyes but there is no broadband access, no 5G. Just as in much of rural America.
There is always a transcript to these videos, Emmy Lou. I'm not sure why you can't access it. When I tap "Watch Now", the word "Transcript" appears right underneath the video, which takes you straight to the written version. I'm afraid it is too long for me to copy and paste in reply to your comment this time, though I have tried!
I absolutely agree. My Viasat internet connection is so flaky I can't reliably stream the video which means the transcript is problematic too. It would be helpful if an audio version could be made available. A quick and simple task, stripping the audio track from the video, and a huge reduction in bandwidth.
Is this any use? My ipad lets me copy the whole thing, which my phone does not.
This is Timothy Snyder. It's the 8th of October, 2025. I'm speaking on my substack, thinking about, and my subject today is Stephen Miller and Stalinism. Now, this may not seem like the obvious way to approach the topic of Mr. Miller, but I would suggest that there are some uncanny resemblances between the careers of the two men.
Let me just mention five. Number one, the positions that they occupy. Joseph Stalin was able to rise to power in the early Soviet Union because of his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party. That seems at first to be a kind of technical administrative position,
but in allowing him to keep an eye on the entire apparatus and allowing him to take charge of promotions and demotions, it actually got him very close to the center of power. Similarly with Mr. Miller, he holds the position of presidential chief of staff, which one might think is simply the top of a managerial pyramid,
but it allows him precisely to decide who has the year of the president. It seems to allow him to decide what the president is. I was about to say reads, but I should say watches. It gives him an implicit authority, which I think is very quickly becoming an explicit authority over matters of state in the US.
Second similarity, illness to the principle. So Stalin's rise to power begins not with Lenin's death, but with Lenin's illness. Vladimir Lenin suffered two strokes in 1922, and then again in 1923, the second of them being quite debilitating. And it was during this period that Stalin begins his rise to power.
I don't want to speculate too closely about the state of Mr. Trump's health, but it's obviously not ideal. And he is obviously in some sort of decline. And that decline seems, you can judge for yourself and the media as well as I, to have created a good deal of space for Mr.
Miller to operate and to be seen to be operating at the center of power of the United States of America. A third similarity is, let's say, imaginative. It has to do with the ability to invent and then to insist on the existence of conspiracies that do not, in fact, exist. So,
Stalin's signal method of consolidating power was to take advantage of an assassination of a man called Kirov in 1934, and then to move from there to the claim that there were giant but unseen conspiracies inside the Soviet Union linked to vast powers beyond the Soviet Union, whose only goal was to destroy Soviet power and, of course,
make life difficult for Stalin himself. He proceeded on various versions of that plot to move through waves of great murderous terror in 1937 and 1938. All of them, whether they be show trials or whether they be much more silent and much larger mass killing operations, depending upon various non-existent plots. Now, of course, Mr.
Miller isn't that far along yet, but in the last few days, he's shown a remarkably consistent propensity to insist on the existence of vast conspiracies inside the United States, linked, of course, to vast forces beyond the United States with the goal of destroying American power or making life difficult for Mr. Miller himself.
I'm going to note here that the convenience of vast non-existent conspiracies is that they allow for unlimited pursuit of the people that you decide are the enemy. Since the conspiracy does not, in fact, exist, you are essentially enabling yourself to do whatever you can, so long as you can keep the story going, which, of course,
it's not clear that Mr. Miller can. The fourth similarity has to do with a fondness for the state of exception. So even the Soviet Union had laws. And in order to carry out moments of vast coordinated and rapid terror, even the Soviet Union had to suspend the rule of law for a formal state of exception.
If we look at Mr. Miller's utterances in the last few days, we see a similar hankering for a state of exception. Again and again, in his wild critiques of judges and in the way he characterizes law, he is clamoring for precisely a moment of exception where all things will be permitted. where only power matters,
with only the executive having the personal ability to decide whether power or indeed terror is going to be used. A fifth similarity has to do with the direction in which this kind of conspiratorial thinking takes us and the direction in which this sort of unlimited power during a state of exception takes us.
It has to do with interrogation. I'm not sure how many of you read with care the terror memo that Mr. Miller released last week, nominally Mr. Trump, but obviously Mr. Miller. One of its claims is that the federal government is going to use all the means at its disposal to interrogate suspects.
This is important because when the conspiracy doesn't exist, and when you're in some kind of state of exception, it's the interrogations which allow you to generate the quote-unquote evidence, which allows the whole thing to go on and continue. I name these five similarities not because I'm claiming that the situation of the Soviet Union in, let's say,
1925 is exactly the same as the situation of the United States in 2025. What I am saying and what I do try to say consistently is that knowledge of history and awareness of history can allow us to see patterns, make connections, and identify incipient problems.
It can give us a language and a set of references which allows us to step back, broaden our view, and see things and sometimes warn ourselves and others when necessary. I'm not saying that substantially the views of the two men are the same, but I don't think it's the substance that is most important.
I actually think it's the form. I think a form in which you rise to power unelected by controlling access to the leader, a form in which you are taking advantage of the illness of that leader, a form in which you rely upon non-existent, vast conspiracies,
a form in which you plead for and try to implement a state of exception, and a form of politics in which you dream about and eventually carry out vast... vast numbers of interrogations in order to, so to speak, make real that conspiracy. That form of politics is something that we should be alert to.
So I'm making this comparison not because I think the political aims are the same. Obviously, they're not. But I'm making this comparison because to me, what's fundamental is the political form, the political method. And I see forms and methods here which are concerning.
And the comparison to the Soviet Union in the 1920s is one way to see why we have cause for concern. Thank you for listening. This is Tim Snyder. This is for the 8th of October, 2025. It's on my substack, Thinking About. Thanks for being with me.
You just stimulated me to discover more about MY IPAD! This might also be helpful to those having difficulties:
1. I receive an email alerting me to the video.
2. If I PRESS AND HOLD the Watch Now option at the bottom of the video screen, I get 2 options.
3. First, I can go to SUBSTACK. This choice makes the AUDIO podcast available.
4. Second, I can go to SAFARI. This choice makes the VIDEO available.
5. If I choose the VIDEO, captions appear at the bottom of the video screen, and if they don't first appear, pressing cc at the bottom of the screen brings them up.
6. Below the video screen on the same line as the Like, Restack options, at the righthand side, there is an option labelled TRANSCRIPT. The full text is displayed together with time points for separate paragraphs.
7. I tried to print off this without success.
8. However, there is a RIGHT-POINTING ARROW at the righthand side at the top of the transcript. Pressing this reformats the text so it fits to an A4 page.
9. I think this should enable the transcript to be printed out via the standard Share button—the one which is normally used to bring up the menu which includes the Print option.
10. In my case, I still had some printing problems to negotiate, but these had to do with my Epson printer, not the iPad. One of the infuriating things about Apple is the way their advanced iPad technology just renders all the associated apps we may be using ineffective until they too update. My Epson printer seems not yet to be fully able to interact with my late-model iPad efficiently.
11. A caveat: I live in AUSTRALIA. METRIC measurements are standard here, hence A4 PRINTING. I know you in the US still use IMPERIAL measurements, so your experience in trying to connect to a printer in order to print out the transcript may be different.
12. Disclosure: Yes, I know, I am a 78-year old baby boomer who still feels safer having a printed copy of very important stuff. I have an impressive historical library covering a full 50 years on my shelves here. You may well laugh, but note: when the worldwide web goes down, you'll all be begging me to post you hard copy via snail mail… but don't fret, I have a big heart, I won't charge you…
"This is Timothy Snyder. It's the 8th of October, 2025. I'm speaking on my substack, thinking about, and my subject today is Stephen Miller and Stalinism. Now, this may not seem like the obvious way to approach the topic of Mr. Miller, but I would suggest that there are some uncanny resemblances between the careers of the two men.
Let me just mention five. Number one, the positions that they occupy. Joseph Stalin was able to rise to power in the early Soviet Union because of his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party. That seems at first to be a kind of technical administrative position,
but in allowing him to keep an eye on the entire apparatus and allowing him to take charge of promotions and demotions, it actually got him very close to the center of power. Similarly with Mr. Miller, he holds the position of presidential chief of staff, which one might think is simply the top of a managerial pyramid,
but it allows him precisely to decide who has the year of the president. It seems to allow him to decide what the president is. I was about to say reads, but I should say watches. It gives him an implicit authority, which I think is very quickly becoming an explicit authority over matters of state in the US.
Second similarity, illness to the principle. So Stalin's rise to power begins not with Lenin's death, but with Lenin's illness. Vladimir Lenin suffered two strokes in 1922, and then again in 1923, the second of them being quite debilitating. And it was during this period that Stalin begins his rise to power.
I don't want to speculate too closely about the state of Mr. Trump's health, but it's obviously not ideal. And he is obviously in some sort of decline. And that decline seems, you can judge for yourself and the media as well as I, to have created a good deal of space for Mr.
Miller to operate and to be seen to be operating at the center of power of the United States of America. A third similarity is, let's say, imaginative. It has to do with the ability to invent and then to insist on the existence of conspiracies that do not, in fact, exist. So,
Stalin's signal method of consolidating power was to take advantage of an assassination of a man called Kirov in 1934, and then to move from there to the claim that there were giant but unseen conspiracies inside the Soviet Union linked to vast powers beyond the Soviet Union, whose only goal was to destroy Soviet power and, of course,
make life difficult for Stalin himself. He proceeded on various versions of that plot to move through waves of great murderous terror in 1937 and 1938. All of them, whether they be show trials or whether they be much more silent and much larger mass killing operations, depending upon various non-existent plots. Now, of course, Mr.
Miller isn't that far along yet, but in the last few days, he's shown a remarkably consistent propensity to insist on the existence of vast conspiracies inside the United States, linked, of course, to vast forces beyond the United States with the goal of destroying American power or making life difficult for Mr. Miller himself.
I'm going to note here that the convenience of vast non-existent conspiracies is that they allow for unlimited pursuit of the people that you decide are the enemy. Since the conspiracy does not, in fact, exist, you are essentially enabling yourself to do whatever you can, so long as you can keep the story going, which, of course,
it's not clear that Mr. Miller can. The fourth similarity has to do with a fondness for the state of exception. So even the Soviet Union had laws. And in order to carry out moments of vast coordinated and rapid terror, even the Soviet Union had to suspend the rule of law for a formal state of exception.
If we look at Mr. Miller's utterances in the last few days, we see a similar hankering for a state of exception. Again and again, in his wild critiques of judges and in the way he characterizes law, he is clamoring for precisely a moment of exception where all things will be permitted. where only power matters,
with only the executive having the personal ability to decide whether power or indeed terror is going to be used. A fifth similarity has to do with the direction in which this kind of conspiratorial thinking takes us and the direction in which this sort of unlimited power during a state of exception takes us.
It has to do with interrogation. I'm not sure how many of you read with care the terror memo that Mr. Miller released last week, nominally Mr. Trump, but obviously Mr. Miller. One of its claims is that the federal government is going to use all the means at its disposal to interrogate suspects.
This is important because when the conspiracy doesn't exist, and when you're in some kind of state of exception, it's the interrogations which allow you to generate the quote-unquote evidence, which allows the whole thing to go on and continue. I name these five similarities not because I'm claiming that the situation of the Soviet Union in, let's say,
1925 is exactly the same as the situation of the United States in 2025. What I am saying and what I do try to say consistently is that knowledge of history and awareness of history can allow us to see patterns, make connections, and identify incipient problems.
It can give us a language and a set of references which allows us to step back, broaden our view, and see things and sometimes warn ourselves and others when necessary. I'm not saying that substantially the views of the two men are the same, but I don't think it's the substance that is most important.
I actually think it's the form. I think a form in which you rise to power unelected by controlling access to the leader, a form in which you are taking advantage of the illness of that leader, a form in which you rely upon non-existent, vast conspiracies,
a form in which you plead for and try to implement a state of exception, and a form of politics in which you dream about and eventually carry out vast... vast numbers of interrogations in order to, so to speak, make real that conspiracy. That form of politics is something that we should be alert to.
So I'm making this comparison not because I think the political aims are the same. Obviously, they're not. But I'm making this comparison because to me, what's fundamental is the political form, the political method. And I see forms and methods here which are concerning.
And the comparison to the Soviet Union in the 1920s is one way to see why we have cause for concern. Thank you for listening. This is Tim Snyder. This is for the 8th of October, 2025. It's on my substack, Thinking About. Thanks for being with me."
Don't know if this helps, but I didn't have one on the Substack screen, but I clicked on the TA "chip" at the top of that page above the video and it took me to a screen that had the video more options including Transcript. https://snyder.substack.com/p/stalinism-and-stephen-miller-video
Dear Dr. Snyder. Brilliant. And chilling. I would like to add two names to the Miller comparison. Adolph Eichmann, who Miller even shares a physical resemblance. And Lee Atwater, President George Herbert Walker Bush's guitar playing racist who made espousing hatred acceptable. The three subjects, Stalin, Eichmann, and Atwater - were dangerous and lethal. Miller is dangerous and I fear that if he is not corralled, he will rapidly become lethal. My spiritual belief is that only a certain amount of evil is allowed to exist in our world prior to a backlash. Struggle.
The Atwater, of Atwater, (Roger)Stone and (Paul) Manafort.
He famously ' made Willie Horton Dukakis' running mate'. He (and Newt Gingrich) thoroughly convinced the GOP that going ugly and non-factual was the future.
Lee Atwater died of brain cancer at the age of 40.
This atheist wonders if God was sending us a message.
Lee Atwater was venal. But he was also clever and amusing. It is said he repented on his, early, death bed. This is not to minimize the evil that Atwater promoted and the harm that he did. It is only to question lumping him with Stalin, Eichmann, and Miller. Like Stalin and Eichmann, Stephen Miller is neither clever nor amusing. He is stolid and shrill.
Atwater fit the Reagan mode: 'how to be a racist without sounding like a racist.' Trump is Reagan writ large and writ vulgar. No more dog whistles. Miller speaks that language.
He speaks with such clarity. Miller is a cruel cruel thing, can't call him a person because he is not a human being. He is assistant chief of staff but he is really head of the government. He is scary and we must fight it - OCTOBER 18
I find it particularly interesting because Miller is a Jew, his direct ancestors were lucky enough to get out of Europe and into the US before the immigration barrier for European Jews came, and the other branch of his family was exterminated in the Holocaust.
I am fully aware of the human propensity to punch downward, and that certain people have vicious forms of this. Most people who are bullies aren't good at forming connections to power and aren't good at manipulating people. In Miller's case, he led a very privileged life as a youth raised in an expensive suburb by well educated parents, without a doubt that he would go to college and be able to afford to do so. He knew how to deal with the upper middle class and non-gazillionaire upper class because he was a native of this milieu.
Thank you. Your comment, in particular, about illness and the role it plays in Miller's rise in relation to the historical context you provide is especially illuminating.
Outstanding post Professor Snyder! The claim across the entire upper echelon of the Trump Tyranny that a vast network of terror organized by the left in America that threatens all our lives is a bit of wild nonsense that is indeed right in line with the typical practices of all Tyrants, certainly including Stalin.
We must all be aware of the dangers these steps by Miller, but also, Bondi, Hegseth, really all of the current government poses, putting everyone of us into the category of potential enemies.
I wasn’t anticipating a comparison between these two markedly different individuals today, but it’s surprisingly apt. Steven Miller represents a deeply concerning figure whose influence should have been more rigorously constrained. It appears that a combination of cabinet ineffectiveness and the deterioration of Trump’s health may have created a power vacuum within the administration, one that Miller has exploited to significant effect. Given this context, I now clearly see the parallels to Stalin that you’ve highlighted. It is all very deeply concerning to anyone that follows historical patterns like I do. Thank you for this insightful analysis.
Thank you for your insight. I have been following you for years: from conversations with the late Tony Judt to Bloodlands to all your books. Beyond the sinister Steven Miller I will deeply appreciate an analysis of the real forces that have allowed this extreme counter revolutionary political power to develop in the first place. It doesn’t even make sense economically unless you happen to support oligarchs. As an aside, back in the 1980s Trump was on the Oprah Winfrey show and his whole outlook was completely authoritarian and was based upon his complete contempt for ordinary people. I am a nobody, with no big time credentials, and I could figure out he was bad news. That day I told my friends and husband that this man is a fascist. I cannot believe that more democratic leaders, including the Clintons, of this country did not isolate him years ago. The political elites, including the so called establishment intelligentsia, did nothing. By the way I watched Morning Joe when Mr Snyder was interviewed, at the beginning of Trump’s first term, and he was shut down by Joe Scarborough when he actually began to make comparisons between now and an authoritarian/fascist political model. So now, thanks to passivity and calculated political/ financial opportunists we have a demented authoritarian president guided by Steven Miller. Without effective resistance we are in for it.
While the form is strikingly similar I posit that the substance may be almost identical. The substance being the drive to personal power. The political frame is certainly different. Tyranny, it seems, can find fertile ground in both the irrational right and the irrational left but tyranny it is nonetheless.
"Tyranny, it seems, can find fertile ground in both the irrational right and the irrational left but tyranny it is nonetheless."
ThankYou. Yes
Religion and Ideology both promote not only allegiance to absolute creed but irrational habits of mind. They both prohibit coming to consensus through reasoned debate of empirical evidence. Which is necessary to a democratic body politic.
Tell that to Charles Koch bagman, piety influencer, and Republican court capture operative Leonard Leo.
And GOP cleaner former AG Bill Barr, Christian Nationalist Russell Vought . . . et al, who believe the Constitution is only meant for the religious faithful.
The only reason that religion is vigorous in the US is that it has NOT been established. In the US, religious entities must compete against each other for the interest of the public - the "capitalistic" or "social Darwinist" model of religion. Attendance is voluntary, and people who choose to attend are committing themselves. Compare membership and attendance in the US with membership and attendance with the UK and Western Europe. The great medieval cathedrals are now tourist attractions and not major worship centers. Communist Poland - lots of Catholics with strong beliefs. Post-Communist right wing Poland - rapid loss of interest in Catholicism by a larger percentage of the population.
Here's an idea. Schoolhouse Rock-style videos (or the real thing) teaching the mechanics of government, tripartite governmental structure, the basic meaning of the Constitution (clarifying common-usage legal terms and other language of the time), the process of a bill being created (including the sausage-making parts) and its path through the legislature to the governor's or President's desk. The REAL thing, not the Prager version. Or, comics / graphic novels covering similar material.
Many people, including many of our politicians up to the highest levels, are ignorant when it comes to basic civics, and couldn't pass the citizenship test.
The percentage of "nones" (atheists, agnostics, "spiritual but not religious", and other non-affiliated individuals) is rapidly growing, especially among the young. "Political religion" is causing people to leave or turn against religion in general. Soon churches will be venues for meeting influential people and making connections, as was the case in the 1950s. Potential small businessman? Join the banker's / loan officer's congregation. Looking for a good job? Same approach. I suppose that this is A-OK for the equally insincere pastor, congregants, politicians, as long as they can squeeze a little money out of people.
Thank you for exposing Miller. Please keep at it, as he is one of the real dangers of this administration. His public appearances have been disasters but that doesn't lessen his malign influence.
Thank you so much Prof. Snyder for this enlightening post. Most Americans don't give a hoot about history unless Hollywood dramatizes it in an action flick. This is much to our detriment. Stephen Miller is a desperate man as he sees that the American people are NOT willing to meekly go along with his dreams. His constant use of the word "insurrection" tells of his desire to see martial law imposed on Americans. Because of Americans ignorance and/or indifference to the study of history, you know what I've been posting? "Have you noticed that no one takes vacations in countries where a single authoritarian leader holds all the power?" That's not an abstract - it's easily understood solid fact. We need to get the American people to THINK (can we tie it to the NFL?) about WHY no one visits these countries. For me personally - what I appreciated greatly in your post today was this emphasis on FORM OVER CONTENT. We need for the American people to see the parallels between rise of the MAGA movement and its leaders with the rise of Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet - there's a deep basket here. Thank you again. Oh and by the way - Stephen Miller is "DEPUTY" Chief of Staff to Trump. Susan Wiles is currently Chief of Staff to Trump. And the fact that she's receded from public view is notable. Wiles is dyed in the wool Republican who will do anything to see her candidate gain power. But she is not an ideologue like Stephen Miller and Russel Vought.
I had always thought better of her but now wonder how Susie Wiles can sleep at night. Some have called her the " mother" figure in the administration. Maybe her success in getting her candidate elected and her powerful position in keeping him in place have blinded even her to what is actually going on around the country. Campaigning and governing are two different things entirely.
I wonder if Miller could ever become (by whatever means) the leader of the US; he is so very disagreeable, unappealing, not telegenic, cold, glib - continue the list ..
I think early on in Trump 1, Miller tried a few appearances and he was as you described. The reaction was negative and he crawled back under his rock where he gives Trump his daily (hourly) "briefing".
Certainly possible, with a "fake election" process in place like in Russia. Is Putin particularly telegenic or warm? He did try the goofy and no doubt staged "ride a horse shirtless" photo. Less doughy than Trump (and younger), but still not appealing.
I imagine that illness helps with the power vacuum. But the nature of authoritarism, itself, creates its own vacuum. If "only you can fix it," and you have to make all the decisions, that creates a vacuum where the authoritarian's attention isn't: it can't be everywhere all at once. Trump is a front man and a "shoot from the hip" entertainer. He can't focus on details consistently. (That's getting worse.) And he has no coherent policies--just manipulation for power. Miller is relentless and consistent execution, almost an obsessive focus on details related to "immigration."
Authoritarian mimicry in plain sight. Miller’s rhetoric isn’t just cruel…it’s structurally Stalinist: dehumanize, isolate, then justify state violence as moral necessity.
Thanks for surfacing this. Behavioral clarity matters.
Pease provide a written transcript. Your words if worth hearing, are worth reading! Thanks!!
Hi Emmy, the transcript is already available. It just looks a bit different depending on how you’re viewing the video.
If you’re on a computer, click on the video and look for the small document or text icon at the bottom. Click that and the transcript will open on the right side. It’s viewable there, but not always the easiest to copy and paste.
If you’re on mobile, there’s a big blue Transcript button just below the video. Tap that and the transcript will replace the comment section. It’s actually much easier to copy from there.
Hope that helps!
You're assuming she has a broadband connection, which a great many of us do not.
From a point 100 meters from my house I can see the Washington Monument and National Cathedral with my bare eyes but there is no broadband access, no 5G. Just as in much of rural America.
Fergus, thank you!! I found it and printed it. It's super easy to do!
There is always a transcript to these videos, Emmy Lou. I'm not sure why you can't access it. When I tap "Watch Now", the word "Transcript" appears right underneath the video, which takes you straight to the written version. I'm afraid it is too long for me to copy and paste in reply to your comment this time, though I have tried!
I absolutely agree. My Viasat internet connection is so flaky I can't reliably stream the video which means the transcript is problematic too. It would be helpful if an audio version could be made available. A quick and simple task, stripping the audio track from the video, and a huge reduction in bandwidth.
Please, Dr Snyder do this!
Is this any use? My ipad lets me copy the whole thing, which my phone does not.
This is Timothy Snyder. It's the 8th of October, 2025. I'm speaking on my substack, thinking about, and my subject today is Stephen Miller and Stalinism. Now, this may not seem like the obvious way to approach the topic of Mr. Miller, but I would suggest that there are some uncanny resemblances between the careers of the two men.
Let me just mention five. Number one, the positions that they occupy. Joseph Stalin was able to rise to power in the early Soviet Union because of his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party. That seems at first to be a kind of technical administrative position,
but in allowing him to keep an eye on the entire apparatus and allowing him to take charge of promotions and demotions, it actually got him very close to the center of power. Similarly with Mr. Miller, he holds the position of presidential chief of staff, which one might think is simply the top of a managerial pyramid,
but it allows him precisely to decide who has the year of the president. It seems to allow him to decide what the president is. I was about to say reads, but I should say watches. It gives him an implicit authority, which I think is very quickly becoming an explicit authority over matters of state in the US.
Second similarity, illness to the principle. So Stalin's rise to power begins not with Lenin's death, but with Lenin's illness. Vladimir Lenin suffered two strokes in 1922, and then again in 1923, the second of them being quite debilitating. And it was during this period that Stalin begins his rise to power.
I don't want to speculate too closely about the state of Mr. Trump's health, but it's obviously not ideal. And he is obviously in some sort of decline. And that decline seems, you can judge for yourself and the media as well as I, to have created a good deal of space for Mr.
Miller to operate and to be seen to be operating at the center of power of the United States of America. A third similarity is, let's say, imaginative. It has to do with the ability to invent and then to insist on the existence of conspiracies that do not, in fact, exist. So,
Stalin's signal method of consolidating power was to take advantage of an assassination of a man called Kirov in 1934, and then to move from there to the claim that there were giant but unseen conspiracies inside the Soviet Union linked to vast powers beyond the Soviet Union, whose only goal was to destroy Soviet power and, of course,
make life difficult for Stalin himself. He proceeded on various versions of that plot to move through waves of great murderous terror in 1937 and 1938. All of them, whether they be show trials or whether they be much more silent and much larger mass killing operations, depending upon various non-existent plots. Now, of course, Mr.
Miller isn't that far along yet, but in the last few days, he's shown a remarkably consistent propensity to insist on the existence of vast conspiracies inside the United States, linked, of course, to vast forces beyond the United States with the goal of destroying American power or making life difficult for Mr. Miller himself.
I'm going to note here that the convenience of vast non-existent conspiracies is that they allow for unlimited pursuit of the people that you decide are the enemy. Since the conspiracy does not, in fact, exist, you are essentially enabling yourself to do whatever you can, so long as you can keep the story going, which, of course,
it's not clear that Mr. Miller can. The fourth similarity has to do with a fondness for the state of exception. So even the Soviet Union had laws. And in order to carry out moments of vast coordinated and rapid terror, even the Soviet Union had to suspend the rule of law for a formal state of exception.
If we look at Mr. Miller's utterances in the last few days, we see a similar hankering for a state of exception. Again and again, in his wild critiques of judges and in the way he characterizes law, he is clamoring for precisely a moment of exception where all things will be permitted. where only power matters,
with only the executive having the personal ability to decide whether power or indeed terror is going to be used. A fifth similarity has to do with the direction in which this kind of conspiratorial thinking takes us and the direction in which this sort of unlimited power during a state of exception takes us.
It has to do with interrogation. I'm not sure how many of you read with care the terror memo that Mr. Miller released last week, nominally Mr. Trump, but obviously Mr. Miller. One of its claims is that the federal government is going to use all the means at its disposal to interrogate suspects.
This is important because when the conspiracy doesn't exist, and when you're in some kind of state of exception, it's the interrogations which allow you to generate the quote-unquote evidence, which allows the whole thing to go on and continue. I name these five similarities not because I'm claiming that the situation of the Soviet Union in, let's say,
1925 is exactly the same as the situation of the United States in 2025. What I am saying and what I do try to say consistently is that knowledge of history and awareness of history can allow us to see patterns, make connections, and identify incipient problems.
It can give us a language and a set of references which allows us to step back, broaden our view, and see things and sometimes warn ourselves and others when necessary. I'm not saying that substantially the views of the two men are the same, but I don't think it's the substance that is most important.
I actually think it's the form. I think a form in which you rise to power unelected by controlling access to the leader, a form in which you are taking advantage of the illness of that leader, a form in which you rely upon non-existent, vast conspiracies,
a form in which you plead for and try to implement a state of exception, and a form of politics in which you dream about and eventually carry out vast... vast numbers of interrogations in order to, so to speak, make real that conspiracy. That form of politics is something that we should be alert to.
So I'm making this comparison not because I think the political aims are the same. Obviously, they're not. But I'm making this comparison because to me, what's fundamental is the political form, the political method. And I see forms and methods here which are concerning.
And the comparison to the Soviet Union in the 1920s is one way to see why we have cause for concern. Thank you for listening. This is Tim Snyder. This is for the 8th of October, 2025. It's on my substack, Thinking About. Thanks for being with me.
Miller is DEPUTY chief of staff, not THE chief of staff--Susie Wiles holds that position.
Miller is Svengali. He is the one with the President's ear. I suspect that Susie Wiles does EXACTLY what Miller tells him to do.
Thankyou! Two screenshots enabled me to print out all of this.
Great! So pleased. Happy to do this every time there is a Snyder video. People's frustration is so obvious!
You just stimulated me to discover more about MY IPAD! This might also be helpful to those having difficulties:
1. I receive an email alerting me to the video.
2. If I PRESS AND HOLD the Watch Now option at the bottom of the video screen, I get 2 options.
3. First, I can go to SUBSTACK. This choice makes the AUDIO podcast available.
4. Second, I can go to SAFARI. This choice makes the VIDEO available.
5. If I choose the VIDEO, captions appear at the bottom of the video screen, and if they don't first appear, pressing cc at the bottom of the screen brings them up.
6. Below the video screen on the same line as the Like, Restack options, at the righthand side, there is an option labelled TRANSCRIPT. The full text is displayed together with time points for separate paragraphs.
7. I tried to print off this without success.
8. However, there is a RIGHT-POINTING ARROW at the righthand side at the top of the transcript. Pressing this reformats the text so it fits to an A4 page.
9. I think this should enable the transcript to be printed out via the standard Share button—the one which is normally used to bring up the menu which includes the Print option.
10. In my case, I still had some printing problems to negotiate, but these had to do with my Epson printer, not the iPad. One of the infuriating things about Apple is the way their advanced iPad technology just renders all the associated apps we may be using ineffective until they too update. My Epson printer seems not yet to be fully able to interact with my late-model iPad efficiently.
11. A caveat: I live in AUSTRALIA. METRIC measurements are standard here, hence A4 PRINTING. I know you in the US still use IMPERIAL measurements, so your experience in trying to connect to a printer in order to print out the transcript may be different.
12. Disclosure: Yes, I know, I am a 78-year old baby boomer who still feels safer having a printed copy of very important stuff. I have an impressive historical library covering a full 50 years on my shelves here. You may well laugh, but note: when the worldwide web goes down, you'll all be begging me to post you hard copy via snail mail… but don't fret, I have a big heart, I won't charge you…
I have almost forgotten about the repulsive Stephen Miller now.
Thank you!!!!!!
Can you click the CC button on the video to give you closed captions.. does that work for you?
"This is Timothy Snyder. It's the 8th of October, 2025. I'm speaking on my substack, thinking about, and my subject today is Stephen Miller and Stalinism. Now, this may not seem like the obvious way to approach the topic of Mr. Miller, but I would suggest that there are some uncanny resemblances between the careers of the two men.
Let me just mention five. Number one, the positions that they occupy. Joseph Stalin was able to rise to power in the early Soviet Union because of his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party. That seems at first to be a kind of technical administrative position,
but in allowing him to keep an eye on the entire apparatus and allowing him to take charge of promotions and demotions, it actually got him very close to the center of power. Similarly with Mr. Miller, he holds the position of presidential chief of staff, which one might think is simply the top of a managerial pyramid,
but it allows him precisely to decide who has the year of the president. It seems to allow him to decide what the president is. I was about to say reads, but I should say watches. It gives him an implicit authority, which I think is very quickly becoming an explicit authority over matters of state in the US.
Second similarity, illness to the principle. So Stalin's rise to power begins not with Lenin's death, but with Lenin's illness. Vladimir Lenin suffered two strokes in 1922, and then again in 1923, the second of them being quite debilitating. And it was during this period that Stalin begins his rise to power.
I don't want to speculate too closely about the state of Mr. Trump's health, but it's obviously not ideal. And he is obviously in some sort of decline. And that decline seems, you can judge for yourself and the media as well as I, to have created a good deal of space for Mr.
Miller to operate and to be seen to be operating at the center of power of the United States of America. A third similarity is, let's say, imaginative. It has to do with the ability to invent and then to insist on the existence of conspiracies that do not, in fact, exist. So,
Stalin's signal method of consolidating power was to take advantage of an assassination of a man called Kirov in 1934, and then to move from there to the claim that there were giant but unseen conspiracies inside the Soviet Union linked to vast powers beyond the Soviet Union, whose only goal was to destroy Soviet power and, of course,
make life difficult for Stalin himself. He proceeded on various versions of that plot to move through waves of great murderous terror in 1937 and 1938. All of them, whether they be show trials or whether they be much more silent and much larger mass killing operations, depending upon various non-existent plots. Now, of course, Mr.
Miller isn't that far along yet, but in the last few days, he's shown a remarkably consistent propensity to insist on the existence of vast conspiracies inside the United States, linked, of course, to vast forces beyond the United States with the goal of destroying American power or making life difficult for Mr. Miller himself.
I'm going to note here that the convenience of vast non-existent conspiracies is that they allow for unlimited pursuit of the people that you decide are the enemy. Since the conspiracy does not, in fact, exist, you are essentially enabling yourself to do whatever you can, so long as you can keep the story going, which, of course,
it's not clear that Mr. Miller can. The fourth similarity has to do with a fondness for the state of exception. So even the Soviet Union had laws. And in order to carry out moments of vast coordinated and rapid terror, even the Soviet Union had to suspend the rule of law for a formal state of exception.
If we look at Mr. Miller's utterances in the last few days, we see a similar hankering for a state of exception. Again and again, in his wild critiques of judges and in the way he characterizes law, he is clamoring for precisely a moment of exception where all things will be permitted. where only power matters,
with only the executive having the personal ability to decide whether power or indeed terror is going to be used. A fifth similarity has to do with the direction in which this kind of conspiratorial thinking takes us and the direction in which this sort of unlimited power during a state of exception takes us.
It has to do with interrogation. I'm not sure how many of you read with care the terror memo that Mr. Miller released last week, nominally Mr. Trump, but obviously Mr. Miller. One of its claims is that the federal government is going to use all the means at its disposal to interrogate suspects.
This is important because when the conspiracy doesn't exist, and when you're in some kind of state of exception, it's the interrogations which allow you to generate the quote-unquote evidence, which allows the whole thing to go on and continue. I name these five similarities not because I'm claiming that the situation of the Soviet Union in, let's say,
1925 is exactly the same as the situation of the United States in 2025. What I am saying and what I do try to say consistently is that knowledge of history and awareness of history can allow us to see patterns, make connections, and identify incipient problems.
It can give us a language and a set of references which allows us to step back, broaden our view, and see things and sometimes warn ourselves and others when necessary. I'm not saying that substantially the views of the two men are the same, but I don't think it's the substance that is most important.
I actually think it's the form. I think a form in which you rise to power unelected by controlling access to the leader, a form in which you are taking advantage of the illness of that leader, a form in which you rely upon non-existent, vast conspiracies,
a form in which you plead for and try to implement a state of exception, and a form of politics in which you dream about and eventually carry out vast... vast numbers of interrogations in order to, so to speak, make real that conspiracy. That form of politics is something that we should be alert to.
So I'm making this comparison not because I think the political aims are the same. Obviously, they're not. But I'm making this comparison because to me, what's fundamental is the political form, the political method. And I see forms and methods here which are concerning.
And the comparison to the Soviet Union in the 1920s is one way to see why we have cause for concern. Thank you for listening. This is Tim Snyder. This is for the 8th of October, 2025. It's on my substack, Thinking About. Thanks for being with me."
Don't know if this helps, but I didn't have one on the Substack screen, but I clicked on the TA "chip" at the top of that page above the video and it took me to a screen that had the video more options including Transcript. https://snyder.substack.com/p/stalinism-and-stephen-miller-video
Dear Dr. Snyder. Brilliant. And chilling. I would like to add two names to the Miller comparison. Adolph Eichmann, who Miller even shares a physical resemblance. And Lee Atwater, President George Herbert Walker Bush's guitar playing racist who made espousing hatred acceptable. The three subjects, Stalin, Eichmann, and Atwater - were dangerous and lethal. Miller is dangerous and I fear that if he is not corralled, he will rapidly become lethal. My spiritual belief is that only a certain amount of evil is allowed to exist in our world prior to a backlash. Struggle.
Lee Atwater.
Very appropriate mention-- thank you, Mr. Escue.
The Atwater, of Atwater, (Roger)Stone and (Paul) Manafort.
He famously ' made Willie Horton Dukakis' running mate'. He (and Newt Gingrich) thoroughly convinced the GOP that going ugly and non-factual was the future.
Lee Atwater died of brain cancer at the age of 40.
This atheist wonders if God was sending us a message.
Sending us a message or saving us from even worse horror?
Lee Atwater was venal. But he was also clever and amusing. It is said he repented on his, early, death bed. This is not to minimize the evil that Atwater promoted and the harm that he did. It is only to question lumping him with Stalin, Eichmann, and Miller. Like Stalin and Eichmann, Stephen Miller is neither clever nor amusing. He is stolid and shrill.
Atwater fit the Reagan mode: 'how to be a racist without sounding like a racist.' Trump is Reagan writ large and writ vulgar. No more dog whistles. Miller speaks that language.
He speaks with such clarity. Miller is a cruel cruel thing, can't call him a person because he is not a human being. He is assistant chief of staff but he is really head of the government. He is scary and we must fight it - OCTOBER 18
"... can't call him a person because he is not a human."
I think we ought not dehumanize any one. Some people personify the depths of depravity humans are capable of.
And he is indeed a human being. This is what human beings are capable of.
I find it particularly interesting because Miller is a Jew, his direct ancestors were lucky enough to get out of Europe and into the US before the immigration barrier for European Jews came, and the other branch of his family was exterminated in the Holocaust.
I am fully aware of the human propensity to punch downward, and that certain people have vicious forms of this. Most people who are bullies aren't good at forming connections to power and aren't good at manipulating people. In Miller's case, he led a very privileged life as a youth raised in an expensive suburb by well educated parents, without a doubt that he would go to college and be able to afford to do so. He knew how to deal with the upper middle class and non-gazillionaire upper class because he was a native of this milieu.
Thank you. Your comment, in particular, about illness and the role it plays in Miller's rise in relation to the historical context you provide is especially illuminating.
And especially frightening. I wonder at what point The Felon's handlers will use the theatrical "cane" to pull him offstage permanently.
Outstanding post Professor Snyder! The claim across the entire upper echelon of the Trump Tyranny that a vast network of terror organized by the left in America that threatens all our lives is a bit of wild nonsense that is indeed right in line with the typical practices of all Tyrants, certainly including Stalin.
We must all be aware of the dangers these steps by Miller, but also, Bondi, Hegseth, really all of the current government poses, putting everyone of us into the category of potential enemies.
I wasn’t anticipating a comparison between these two markedly different individuals today, but it’s surprisingly apt. Steven Miller represents a deeply concerning figure whose influence should have been more rigorously constrained. It appears that a combination of cabinet ineffectiveness and the deterioration of Trump’s health may have created a power vacuum within the administration, one that Miller has exploited to significant effect. Given this context, I now clearly see the parallels to Stalin that you’ve highlighted. It is all very deeply concerning to anyone that follows historical patterns like I do. Thank you for this insightful analysis.
That's just it--they're not so different. The right wing is the same everywhere and everywhen.
Thank you for your insight. I have been following you for years: from conversations with the late Tony Judt to Bloodlands to all your books. Beyond the sinister Steven Miller I will deeply appreciate an analysis of the real forces that have allowed this extreme counter revolutionary political power to develop in the first place. It doesn’t even make sense economically unless you happen to support oligarchs. As an aside, back in the 1980s Trump was on the Oprah Winfrey show and his whole outlook was completely authoritarian and was based upon his complete contempt for ordinary people. I am a nobody, with no big time credentials, and I could figure out he was bad news. That day I told my friends and husband that this man is a fascist. I cannot believe that more democratic leaders, including the Clintons, of this country did not isolate him years ago. The political elites, including the so called establishment intelligentsia, did nothing. By the way I watched Morning Joe when Mr Snyder was interviewed, at the beginning of Trump’s first term, and he was shut down by Joe Scarborough when he actually began to make comparisons between now and an authoritarian/fascist political model. So now, thanks to passivity and calculated political/ financial opportunists we have a demented authoritarian president guided by Steven Miller. Without effective resistance we are in for it.
You have been paying real attention for some time. Excellent observations. Read /listen to Tim Snyder.if you haven't been doing so already.
== Kate Delano-Condax Decker
While the form is strikingly similar I posit that the substance may be almost identical. The substance being the drive to personal power. The political frame is certainly different. Tyranny, it seems, can find fertile ground in both the irrational right and the irrational left but tyranny it is nonetheless.
"Tyranny, it seems, can find fertile ground in both the irrational right and the irrational left but tyranny it is nonetheless."
ThankYou. Yes
Religion and Ideology both promote not only allegiance to absolute creed but irrational habits of mind. They both prohibit coming to consensus through reasoned debate of empirical evidence. Which is necessary to a democratic body politic.
Gotta keep that Church and State separate.
"Gotta keep that Church and State separate."
Tell that to Charles Koch bagman, piety influencer, and Republican court capture operative Leonard Leo.
And GOP cleaner former AG Bill Barr, Christian Nationalist Russell Vought . . . et al, who believe the Constitution is only meant for the religious faithful.
Amen
"Amen"
Ha!
The only reason that religion is vigorous in the US is that it has NOT been established. In the US, religious entities must compete against each other for the interest of the public - the "capitalistic" or "social Darwinist" model of religion. Attendance is voluntary, and people who choose to attend are committing themselves. Compare membership and attendance in the US with membership and attendance with the UK and Western Europe. The great medieval cathedrals are now tourist attractions and not major worship centers. Communist Poland - lots of Catholics with strong beliefs. Post-Communist right wing Poland - rapid loss of interest in Catholicism by a larger percentage of the population.
Here's an idea. Schoolhouse Rock-style videos (or the real thing) teaching the mechanics of government, tripartite governmental structure, the basic meaning of the Constitution (clarifying common-usage legal terms and other language of the time), the process of a bill being created (including the sausage-making parts) and its path through the legislature to the governor's or President's desk. The REAL thing, not the Prager version. Or, comics / graphic novels covering similar material.
Many people, including many of our politicians up to the highest levels, are ignorant when it comes to basic civics, and couldn't pass the citizenship test.
The percentage of "nones" (atheists, agnostics, "spiritual but not religious", and other non-affiliated individuals) is rapidly growing, especially among the young. "Political religion" is causing people to leave or turn against religion in general. Soon churches will be venues for meeting influential people and making connections, as was the case in the 1950s. Potential small businessman? Join the banker's / loan officer's congregation. Looking for a good job? Same approach. I suppose that this is A-OK for the equally insincere pastor, congregants, politicians, as long as they can squeeze a little money out of people.
Thank you for exposing Miller. Please keep at it, as he is one of the real dangers of this administration. His public appearances have been disasters but that doesn't lessen his malign influence.
Thank you so much Prof. Snyder for this enlightening post. Most Americans don't give a hoot about history unless Hollywood dramatizes it in an action flick. This is much to our detriment. Stephen Miller is a desperate man as he sees that the American people are NOT willing to meekly go along with his dreams. His constant use of the word "insurrection" tells of his desire to see martial law imposed on Americans. Because of Americans ignorance and/or indifference to the study of history, you know what I've been posting? "Have you noticed that no one takes vacations in countries where a single authoritarian leader holds all the power?" That's not an abstract - it's easily understood solid fact. We need to get the American people to THINK (can we tie it to the NFL?) about WHY no one visits these countries. For me personally - what I appreciated greatly in your post today was this emphasis on FORM OVER CONTENT. We need for the American people to see the parallels between rise of the MAGA movement and its leaders with the rise of Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet - there's a deep basket here. Thank you again. Oh and by the way - Stephen Miller is "DEPUTY" Chief of Staff to Trump. Susan Wiles is currently Chief of Staff to Trump. And the fact that she's receded from public view is notable. Wiles is dyed in the wool Republican who will do anything to see her candidate gain power. But she is not an ideologue like Stephen Miller and Russel Vought.
I had always thought better of her but now wonder how Susie Wiles can sleep at night. Some have called her the " mother" figure in the administration. Maybe her success in getting her candidate elected and her powerful position in keeping him in place have blinded even her to what is actually going on around the country. Campaigning and governing are two different things entirely.
I am hoping Prof. Snyder will give another talk on how the content differs. That would be very enlightening.
I wonder if Miller could ever become (by whatever means) the leader of the US; he is so very disagreeable, unappealing, not telegenic, cold, glib - continue the list ..
I think early on in Trump 1, Miller tried a few appearances and he was as you described. The reaction was negative and he crawled back under his rock where he gives Trump his daily (hourly) "briefing".
Certainly possible, with a "fake election" process in place like in Russia. Is Putin particularly telegenic or warm? He did try the goofy and no doubt staged "ride a horse shirtless" photo. Less doughy than Trump (and younger), but still not appealing.
Perfect. I would add Russell Vought as belonging in the same position as Stephen Miller.
I imagine that illness helps with the power vacuum. But the nature of authoritarism, itself, creates its own vacuum. If "only you can fix it," and you have to make all the decisions, that creates a vacuum where the authoritarian's attention isn't: it can't be everywhere all at once. Trump is a front man and a "shoot from the hip" entertainer. He can't focus on details consistently. (That's getting worse.) And he has no coherent policies--just manipulation for power. Miller is relentless and consistent execution, almost an obsessive focus on details related to "immigration."
Once again, Dr. Snyder, you hearten me by speaking truths no one else will dare utter. The comparison with Stalin is so appropriate.
As for conspiracy theories, they are a prime tool of the right-wing, so much so, that they probably cannot exist without them.
https://dgilesphd.substack.com/p/what-lurks-beneath-conspiracy-theories?r=2ddaj4
Trump is the puppet. Miller is the puppeteer. Trump is only useful as an object to be manipulated, therefore the sicker he is, the more useful he is.