In Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, the “Totalitarianism in Power” chapter focuses on what totalitarian regimes did to stay in power once they had established themselves. One of the tactics the author mentions is how the leaders will “[hold] out promises of stability in order to hide their intention of creating a state of permanent instability,” (Arendt, 391) and Arendt points out the regimes of Hitler and Stalin as examples of leaders doing so. What’s most important about this tactic is the idea of totalitarian powers purposely creating instability in their nations. The purpose being if the state of a nation is always unstable, then there is no way for the people to get to a stable enough point where they can engage in freedom in a way that could be detrimental to the regime’s power and control. By making a “state of permanent instability,” where the only stable thing is the leadership and the party, the citizens will look towards the party and the leaders for guidance and stability, protecting the party’s control over the nation and their lies. The Party in George Orwell’s 1984 illustrates that tactic of creating instability to ensure control through their constant historical and linguistic changes. Through the Ministry of Truth, the Party continuously re-writes Oceania’s history, from what speech Big Brother gave on a certain day to who the nation was at war with at what time, while never being questioned by the citizens because they are taught to believe that Big Brother and the Party are always telling the truth. Another example of a way the Party creates instability under the illusion of stability is how they keep updating Newspeak. Orwell wrote, 1984: “a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should literally be unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words…. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought,” (Orwell, 310). Stability is created by the existence of a language that only allows for limited thought, protecting the Party’s power under the guise of making communication easier and more concise, and the continuing diminishing of the language’s range makes it impossible for the citizens to truly learn how to freely engage in thought.