Monthly Archives: January, 2012

Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program for all of its 1.2 Billion Residents

Over the past few months, I have written several articles dealing with the coming cashless society and the developing technological control grid. I also have written about the surge of government attempts to gain access to and force the use of biometric data for the purposes of identification, tracking, tracing, and surveillance.

Unfortunately, the reactions I receive from the general public are almost always the same. While some recognize the danger, most simply deny that governments have the capability or even the desire to create a system in which the population is constantly monitored by virtue of their most private and even biological information. Others, either gripped by apathy or ignorance, cannot believe that the gadgets given to them from the massive tech corporations are designed for anything other than their entertainment and enjoyment.

However, current events in India should serve not just as a warning, but also as a foreshadowing of the events to come in the Western world, specifically the United States.

Recently, India has launched a nationwide program Continue reading →

Leaked documents reveal US diplomats actually work for Monsanto

(NaturalNews) Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world’s food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto’s grasp on international politics has never been clearer.

Amazingly, the information reveals that the massive corporation is also intensely involved in

Continue reading →

Intrigue of Mandelson, Rothschild and Russian Gold

For centuries the price of gold has been set at N M Rothshschild’s offices in London every morning so, I recommend you read howNat Rothschild plans to create a global mining company by leveraging his ..” on Bloomberg.

ROTHSCHILD EXPOSES GOLDMINING DEAL FOR FAKE OR FEINT; DERIPASKA’S ATTEMPT TO SELL RUSAL TO ALCOA ALSO EXPOSED

By John Helmer, Moscow

Nathaniel Rothschild’s libel lawsuit against the Daily Mail and Associated Newspapers, due to commence on January 23 in the High Court in London, is now unravelling even more Russian oligarch secrets. As they crack open, so do suspicions of even more inexplicable involvement by Rothschild’s friend, Lord Peter Mandelson, than the lawsuit was intended to stop.

The point on which the entire tale hangs, at least for Rothschild, is that in January 2005, Mandelson was the European Union’s trade commissioner. The events reported by the newspaper in its initial publication, and now in new evidence before the court, suggest that Mandelson was involving himself in Russian business deals which he knew, or should have known, created the appearance of a conflict of interest with his official position.

Rothschild’s claim is that it was libelous to suggest that he put Mandelson in that position. Mandelson’s position is that he wouldn’t countenance a conflict of interest, or the appearance of one.

The Rothschild claim was first filed in July 2010, relating to a newspaper article published the previous May. Read that story here. The original article remained on the newspaper website in

Continue reading →

14 Conspiracy Theories That The Media Now Admits Are Conspiracy Facts

How many times have you heard the mainstream media dismiss certain points of view as “conspiracy theories”?  It seems as though one of the easiest ways to brush something off is to label it as something that only “conspiracy theorists” would believe.  Well, you know what?  A whole lot of the time the “conspiracy theorists” are right and the mainstream media is wrong.  In fact, we owe a great debt to “conspiracy theorists” because they will go places and Continue reading →

250 noteworthy Climategate 2.0 emails

The never ending struggle of humanity against the oligarchy is not fought in battlegrounds any more.

ClimateGate search engines are located here and here.

Here: All in one place, all ClimateGate I and II files, along with source code files, HARRY_READ_ME files, email attachments, documents, etc

WattsUpWithThat.com / January 6, 2012 /

Tom Nelson has been busy slogging through the over 500o emails in CG2, kudos to him.

What Chase & Goldman Sachs did to Greece

I’ve known about this for a while, and haven’t found the right explanation. So thank you Matt Taibbi, from a post that keeps on giving.

I focused on the hubristic, feet-never-touch-the-ground aspect of banker life in this post. Now

Continue reading →

The OUTRAGEOUS Cancer Act 1939

Cancer Act 1939

(1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—

(a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or

(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1

(2)If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2fifty pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale], and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2one hundred pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.

(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3

(4)In any proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a)that the advertisement to which the proceedings relate was published only so far as was reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of persons of the following classes or of one or some of them, that is to say,—

(i)members of either House of Parliament or of a local authority or of a governing body of a voluntary hospital;

(ii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F4

(iii)registered medical practitioners;

(iv)registered nurses;

(v)registered pharmacists and [F5persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 69 of the M1Medicines Act 1968];

(vi)persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses or registered pharmacists;

(vii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F6

(b)that the said advertisement was published only in a publication of a technical character intended for circulation mainly amongst persons of the classes mentioned in the last preceding paragraph or one of some of those classes; or

(c)that the said advertisement was published in such circumstances that he did not know and had no reason to believe that he was taking part in the publication thereof.

(5)Nothing in this section shall apply in respect of any advertisement published by a local authority or by the governing body of a voluntary hospital or by any person acting with the sanction of the Minister.

F7(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[F8(7)Each of the following may institute proceedings under this section—

(a)a county council in England;

(b)a non-metropolitan district council for an area in England for which there is no county council;

(c)a London borough council;

(d)the Common Council of the City of London; or

(e)a county council or county borough council in Wales.]

(8)In this section the expression “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1S. 4(1)(b) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67)Sch. 6

F2Words “level 3 on the standard scale” substituted (S. ) for words “fifty pounds” and “one hundred pounds” in each case by virtue of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1)ss. 289E–289G

F3S. 4(3) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67)Sch. 6

F4S. (4)(a)(ii) repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986 (c. 12)s. 1(1)Sch. 1 Pt. VIII

F5Words substituted by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67)Sch. 5 para. 10

F6S. 4(4)(a) (vii) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67)Sch. 6

F7S. 4(6) repealed (30.10.2008) by Legislative Reform (Local Authority Consent Requirements) (England and Wales) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/2840)arts. 1(1)2(a)

F8S. 4(7) substituted (30.10.2008) by Legislative Reform (Local Authority Consent Requirements) (England and Wales) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/2840)arts. 1(1)2(b)

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1)ss. 35 (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), 38 (increase of fines) and 46 (substitution of references to levels on the standard scale) apply (E. W. )

C2Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1)ss. 289E (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), applies (S. )

Source: http://learncommonlaw.today/index.php/the-outrageous-cancer-act-1939

Economic Elitists Strip Away European Sovereignty

An excerpt from Bob Chapman’s weekly publication.
Questioning European leadership, 17 members of the elite set to strip away European autonomy, a charade of misdirection, no new Euros printed as of yet, ECB in bed with The Fed, gold and silver the only true value of currency, Greek exit from Euro inevitable.

Even the middle of the road journalists are beginning to question Europe’s elected and appointed leadership. This past Monday the plan for the euro zone was laid out for a final capitulation to world government. The financial crisis has been handled from behind the scenes by the Fed, so that Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and France’s President can concentrate on more important matters, namely the final federalization of the euro zone to be

Continue reading →

For Solidarity: I, too, am Greek !

Solidarity with the Greek people !

I, too, am Greek !
We demand double nationality !

Enfuriated by the cowardice and lack of imagination of the Western
governments—including our own (1)—towards the dictatorship of the
financial markets;

And disgusted by the current humiliations being imposed on the Greek
people, shamefully accused of excess and dishonesty, pronounced guilty
without being allowed a defence (2), condemned to endless austerity
and penitant contrition, in a language that evokes 1940 and Pétain
with its “moral order,” “effort” and “spirit of joy;”

And certainly not forgotting those who now sacrifice Greece to the
financial speculators, pretend that “economic fascism” will content
itself with the little countries, sparing themselves…

… those same people who abandoned Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in
Munich in 1938, hoping that he would be satisfied with this new prey,
following the cowardice shown to the Spanish republicans (3);

We will no longer support these nouveaux riches (the triumphant 1% of
the globalised world), who ignore the moral debt that humanity owes to
the Greek nation (4), which sowed the first seeds of direct democracy
(5), based precisely on the abolition of debts and the emancipation of
citizens reduced to slavery by their indebtedness 2500 years ago (6).

For all these reasons, we are all Greeks. We want to send a clear
signal right now that we will no longer collaborate a minute longer in
passivity towards the financial regime imposed on Greece (7). We wish
to express our solidarity with Greece, and to share, at least
symbolically, the fate of its people.

We therefore ask for dual Greek nationality, by making a formal
request to the Greek ambassador in our country. We will launch this
campaign with a list of primary signatories on the 24 November 2011, a
date that is also the anniversary of a significant action by the Greek
resistance at the Gorgopotamos Viaduct on the night of the 24/25
November 1942 (8).

“Declaration of Nantes for Greece,” 11/11/11.

“Your excellency, in solidarity with your country, I, the undersigned………….. request personally to be counted at heart a Greek, to enjoy the rights and duties of dual nationality, and to express this international citizenship with a view to the establishment of universal democracy in liberty and equality, twenty-five centuries after the time of Solon, Clisthene, and Pericles. Thanks in advance for your response, and in fraternity with your people. ”

My name, town and country of residence follow, along with my profession and other relevant personal information (blogger, musician, father, student, Hellenist, age, etc.): FAMILY NAME, First name………… Town……….. Country of residence……. Profession and other personal information…………….. Where to send it ? In France, send a letter to l’Ambassade de Grèce, République hellénique, 17 rue Auguste-Vacquerie, 75116 Paris (Telephone : 01 47 23 72 28, Fax : 01 47 23 73 85 ).
Copy and paste this text, or write a personalised letter to the embassy. When you have done so, send a copy to the following list of
email addresses (copy/paste the entire line):

mfapar@wanadoo.fr, grinfoamb.paris@wanadoo.fr, info@amb-grece.fr, grpresse@magic.fr, jesuisgrec@numericable.fr,

(The first address is that of the Greek embassy in Paris, the next two
are those of its press office and communications office which must be
informed of your application, the fourth is the Greek office at the
Council of Europe in Strasbourg, and the latter is the liaison address
for this initiative for information and coordination).

You can also post a personal comment on the dedicated blog:
http//:www.jesuisgrec.blogspot.fr

This personal and collective response of a request for Greek
nationality belongs only to those who undertake it, and is not
directed by any party or institution. It has been proposed by the
N.e.u.f. cultural association (“Nantes Est Une Fête! “, note 9)

Notes on the call for solidarity:

Note 1: We will never forget the paternalistic disdain displayed
towards Greece by the leaders of Germany and France, an arrogant and
vexatious attitude, made all the more scandalous by the fact that it
is these two countries whose major arms deals with Greece have ruined
the country.

We are shamed by the Merkel-Sarkozy couple, who lecture at Greece when
it is down, forcing upon them a treatment that is as highhanded and
inept as that of the bloodletting physicians of old, medicine which
they next plan to administer to their own people.

We cannot accept that, for the first time in the history of mankind, a
country will lose its political sovereignty at the diktat of financial
markets, merely to defend the investments of the privileged 1% of the
world, who have bought themselves government bonds.

We will not allow these slanders towards the Greek people to pass,
while the responsibilities of the profitmongers and international
traffickers and their accomplices remain ignored.

Note 2: Nor even to express themselves in a referendum.

Note 3: Churchill’s well known comment after Munich: “You were given
the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” Gandhi’s comment from India is less well known: “Europe has sold her soul for the sake of seven-days’ earthly existence. The peace Europe gained at Munich is a triumph of violence; it is also its
defeat.”

We do not forget General Faucher, the French mission chief in Prague,
who, sickened by the Munich agreement, submitted an honourable
resignation to the French government, and then requested Czech
citizenship. General Louis-Eugène Faucher (1874-1964) had lived for
twenty years among the Czech people. On his return to France, he
joined the resistance against the Nazi occupation, was arrested and
deported to Germany, and survived to return home in 1945.

Note 4: Because Greece has given the world the inspiring myth of
Antigone, the unconquerable defiance of conscience in the face of
arbitrary tyranny;

Note 5: Because Greece gave Europe the first seeds of direct democracy
(not delegated to a class of professionals, but exercised directly by
an assembly and by drawing lots),

Note 6: And because the first act of the newborn Athenian democracy,
though but a fragile and imperfect shoot, under the rule of Solon in
594 BCE, was precisely the abolition of debts and the general
emancipation of citizens reduced to slavery by personal indebtedness.
But who remembers that?

We do not forget the eminent and heroic Greek resistance, which
strongly participated in the liberation of Europe from Nazism.

Note 7: The controls imposed on Greece are a blatant coup d’etat
against European democracy, a deliberate suffocation of its civil
society, a material and moral humiliation of its people, which will
inevitably spread in a domino effect to neighbouring countries,
including our own, with a risk of pre-fascist crisis.

Note 8: On the night of the 24/25 November 1942, the destruction of
the strategic Gorgopotamos railway viaduct between Thessaloniki and
Athens was an important joint action between two major elements of the
Greek resistance: the communist EAM-ELAS and the non-communist
EDES-EOEA, with the support of British special forces.

Note 9: The N.e.u.f association organises the Fête des langues
(Festival of languages) and walking tours commemorating the resistance against fascism in Nantes (Pays de la Loire/Brittany, France). This association was instrumental in achieving the transparent publication of public finances on the internet in 1995, and in 1997 launched the “Réveillon de 1er mai” (Eve of the 1st of May) outside the Paris Bourse (Stock exchange), the first demonstration in the western world for the Tobin tax on financial speculation and against tax havens.
N.e.u.f. also participated in the “Call to the youth for resistance”
of the 8 March 2004 with ATTAC, and the Décapol Declaration for Ten
new rights for the coming century.

Vidéo et texte de l’Appel des Résistants (+ traductions)

http://cf.groups.yahoo.com/group/LeMonde-etLaResistance/message/2

Decapol ? Dekapolis ? Decapologue ? Decapolitia ? Decapublica ? (dix nouveaux droits pour le siècle qui vient)

Technical notes:

There is a general Greek consulate in Marseille, as well as twenty or
so honorary consulates in other French towns. Consult the list here:
http://www.levoyageur.net/ambassade.php?pays=GRECE

A Greek flag measuring 1 x 1.5m with a pole, costs around 30 euros
from a specialised shop. A small table flag costs about 3 euros.

The photo overleaf shows the Greek flag flying over the Acropolis in
Athens, an important site for remembrance of the anti-nazi resistance.

SVP :
Nous cherchons des volontaires pour traduire l’intégralité de ce message en grec, anglais, et autres langues. Merci d’avance.

Tous contacts : jesuisgrec@numericable.fr

http://jesuisgrec.blogspot.com/

Death by Government

“Given the extent and detail of these books, the reader may be surprised that the primary purpose was not to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and amount in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent”.

By: R.J. Rummel
New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers, 1994.
Recommended reading: Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder

Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long
—-Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

CONTENTS


Figures and Tables
Forward (by Irving Louis Horowitz)
Preface
Acknowledgments

1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

I BACKGROUND

2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS

8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS

15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
References
Index


FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Megamurderers and Their Annual Rates
Figure 1.2. Democide Lethality
Figure 1.3. Golgotha Among the Largest States
Figure 1.4. Golgotha’s Racial/Ethnic Composition
Figure 1.5. Regional Origin of Golgothians
Figure 1.6. Democide Compared to War Battle-Dead
Figure 1.7a. Power Curve of Total Democide
Figure 1.7b. Power Curve of War Battle-Dead
Figure 1.7c. Power Curve of Democide Intensity
Figure 1.7d. Power Curve of War Intensity (Killed)
Figure 1.8. Democide Versus War Battle-Dead; Democracies Versus Nondemocracies
Figure 1.9. Range of Democide Estimates for Regimes
Figure 4.1 Soviet Democide Components and War/Rebellion Killed 1917-1987
Figure 4.2. Soviet Democide and Annual Rate by Period.
Figure 5.1. PRC Democide and Annual Rate by Period
Figure 5.2. PRC Democide by Source
Figure 5.3. PRC Democide, Famine, and War/Revolution Deaths by Period
Figure 6.1. Nazi Democide Compared to That of Others
Figure 7.1. Nationalist Versus Communist Democide
Figure 8.1. Components of Japanese Democide in World War II
Figure 9.1. Estimated Cambodian Population Versus Predicted
Figure 9.2.. Estimated Regime Effects on the Cambodian Population
Figure 9.3. Sources of Unnatural Cambodian Deaths
Figure 9.4. Perpetrators of Cambodian Democide
Figure 9.5. Cambodian Democide Rates Compared to Others
Figure 10.1. Deaths From Turkey’s Genocide, War, and Famine 1900-1923
Figure 11.1. Comparison of Vietnam War and Post-War Deaths in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia 1954-1987
Figure 14.1. Democide Annual Rates: Yugoslavia Compared to Others

TABLES

Table 1.1. Democratic Versus Nondemocratic Wars 1816-1991
Table 1.2. 20th Century Democide
Table 1.3. Fifteen Most Lethal Regimes
Table 1.4. This Century’s Bloodiest Dictators
Table 1.5. Some Major Episodes and Cases of Democide
Table 1.6. Democide and Power
Table 2.1. Sources of Mass Death
Table 3.1. Selected pre-20th Century Democide and Totals
Table 4.1. Overview of Soviet Democide
Table 5.1.. PRC Democide 1949-1987
Table 6.1. Selected Nazi Democide and European War Dead
Table 6.2. Nazi Democide Rates
Table 6.3.. Comparison of Nazi Democide to That of Other Regimes
Table 7.1. China’s Democide, Famine, War and Rebellion Dead, 1928-1949
Table 7.2. Period and Annual Democide Rates %
Table 8.1. Japanese Democide in WWII
Table 9.1. Cambodian Dead 1967-1978
Table 9.2. Conditions of Life Under the Khmer Rouge
Table 2.1. Cambodian Democide Rates Compared to Others
Table 10.1. Turkey’s Dead 1900-1923
Table 10.2. Turkey’s Armenian and Greek Genocide
Table 11.1. Vietnam’s War-Dead and Democide 1945-1987
Table 11.2. Vietnam War and Post-War Dead 1954-1987
Table 11.3. Vietnam: Comparative Democide Rates
Table 12.1. German Expulsion Democide
Table 12.2. German Expulsion Democide Rates
Table 13.1. Pakistan Dead March to December 1971
Table 14.1. Democide in Yugoslavia
Table 14.2. Comparison of Yugoslavian Democide and Democide Rates
Table 15.1. North Korean Democide 1948-1987
Table 16.1. Mexican Democide 1900-1920
Table 17.1. Russian Democide 1900-1917


PREFACE*

This is my fourth book in a series on genocide and government mass murder, what I call democide. The previous works concentrated on the four regimes that have committed the most democide, specifically the Soviet Union, Nationalist China under Chiang Kai-shek, communist China, and Nazi Germany.1 This study includes the core results of those works in addition to all other cases of democide in this century up to 1987.2 Given the extent and detail of these books, the reader may be surprised that the primary purpose was not to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and amount in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent. They should have no wars between them, the least foreign violence and government related or directed domestic violence (revolutions, coups, guerrilla war, and the like), and relatively little domestic democide. I have substantiated the war, foreign, and domestic violence parts of this theory in previous works3 and took up the research associated with this book and its three predecessors in order to test the democide component. As will be seen, the results here clearly and decisively show that democracies commit less democide than other regimes. These results also well illustrate the principle underlying all my findings on war, collective violence, and democide, which is that the less freedom people have the more violence, the more freedom the less violence. I put this here as the Power Principle: power kills, absolute power kills absolutely.

In developing the statistics for this and the previous three volumes, almost 8,200 estimates of war, domestic violence, genocide, mass murder, and other relevant data, were recorded from over a thousand sources. I then did over 4,200 consolidations and calculations on these estimates and organized everything into tables of estimates, calculations, and sources totaling more than 18,100 rows. My intent is to be as explicit and public as possible so that others can evaluate, correct, and build on this work. I give the appendices for the Soviet, Chinese, and Nazi democide in my books on them. The appendices for this book were too massive to include here (one appendix table alone amounts to over 50 pages) and are given in a supplementary volume titled Statistics of Democide. I also include therein the details and results of various kinds of multivariate analysis of this democide and related data.

Then what is covered here? This book presents the primary results, tables, and figures, and most important, an historical sketch of the major cases of democide–those in which 1,000,000 or more people were killed by a regime. The first chapter is the summary and conclusion of this work on democide, and underlines the roles of democracy and power. Following this, chapter 2 in Part 1 introduces the new concept of democide. It defines and elaborates it, shows that democide subsumes genocidal killing, as well as the concepts of politicide and mass murder, and then tries to anticipate questions that the concept may arouse. It argues that democide is for the killing by government definitionally similar to the domestic crime of murder by individuals, and that murderer is an appropriate label for those regimes that commit democide. Readers that are satisfied with the thumbnail definition of democide as murder by government, including genocidal killing,4 can ignore this chapter. It is essential, however, for those with a professional interest in the results or wish to question the conclusions.

Following this chapter is a rough sketch of democide before the 20th century. Although hardly any historical accounting has been done for genocide and mass murder, as for the Amerindians slaughtered by European colonists or Europeans massacred during the Thirty Years War, a number of specific democidal events and episodes can be described with some historical accuracy and a description of these provides perspective on 20th century democide. I have in mind particularly the human devastation wrought by the Mongols, the journey of death by slaves from capture through transportation to the Old and New Worlds, the incredible bloodletting of the Taiping Rebellion, and the infamous Paris executions and relatively unknown genocide of the French Revolution. The upshot of this chapter is to show that democide has been very much a part of human history and that in some cases, even without the benefit of modern killing technology and implementing bureaucracy, people were beheaded, stabbed, or sliced to death by the hundreds of thousands within a short duration. In some cities captured by the Mongols, for example, they allegedly massacred over 1,000,000 men, women, and children.

Parts 2 to 4 present all the regimes murdering 1,000,000 or more people in this century, a chapter on each. These are written so as to show which regime committed what democide, how and why. The emphasis is on the connection between a regime, its intentions, and its democide. Although each of the case studies drives toward some final accounting of the democide, the specifics of such figures and the nature and problems in the statistics are ignored. These are rather dealt with in each appendix to a case study (given in Statistics of Democide), where each table of estimates, sources, and calculations is preceded by a detailed discussion of the estimates and the manner in which the totals were determined. The historical description of a case given here is only meant to provide an understanding of the democide. For this reason many specific examples will be given of the kind and nature of a regime’s killing. I have generally avoided, however, tales of brutal torture and savage killing unless such were useful to illustrate an aspect of the democide.

These chapters are ordered from the greatest of these killers to the lesser ones, as one can see from the table of contents. Part 2 presents the four deka-megamurderers, beginning with a chapter on the Soviet Union’s near 61,000,000 murdered, then including chapters on Communist China and Nazi Germany, and ending with a chapter on the now virtually unremembered killing of the Chinese Nationalist regime. Since these four regimes were the subjects of the previous three volumes,5 the four chapters simply summarize the democide and conclusions. I hope I will be excused for using Greek prefixes for labeling these regimes (deka– means ten or tens; mega– means million), but we need concepts for the various levels of government murder and there is no comparable English term (“murderer of tens of millions” is clumsy).

Part 3 presents in order the lesser-megamurders, those that have killed 1,000,000 to less than 10,000,000 citizens and foreigners. A chapter also is devoted to each. In some cases, as for Poland’s murder of ethnic Germans and Reichdeutsch, a whole series of events spanning several countries was covered. In this case Poland’s treatment of these Germans was part of a pattern of expulsion from Eastern Europe after World War II. In some cases also, several successive regimes for the same country had committed democide and these were therefore treated together, as for the Sihanouk, Lon Nol, Pol Pot, and Samrim regimes of Cambodia.

There were three regimes–those of the Czar in Russia, North Korea’s, and Mexico’s from 1900 to 1920–for which the estimates were not sufficient in number or quality to make a final determination of their democide. What estimates there were total over 1,000,000 murdered, but I treat this total as only an indictment for murder. These three are described in Part 4 as suspected megamurders.

In summary chapter 1 and in each of the case studies I present democide totals of one sort or another. With the exception of those that are directly cited from other works, how have I determined these figures, such as that Khmer Rouge regime likely murdered 2,000,000 Cambodians? The prior question is: how should these democide figures I give, totals or otherwise, by looked at? As, with little doubt, wrong! I would be amazed if future archival, historical research, and confessions of the perpetrators came up with this figure or one within 10 percent of it. Regimes and their agents often do not record all their murders and what they do record will be secret. Even, however, when such archives are available, such as after defeat in war, and they are kept by the most technologically advanced of regimes with a cultural propensity for record keeping and obedience to authority, and a bureaucratic apparatus doing the murders systematically, the total number of victims cannot be agreed upon. Consider that even after all the effort over forty-five years by the best scholars of the Holocaust to count how many Jews were killed by the Nazis, even with total access to surviving documents in the Nazi archives and the first hand reports of survivors and participants, the difference between the lowest and highest of the best estimates is still 41 percent.6

All the totals and figures in this book should therefore be viewed as rough approximations, as suggestive of an order of magnitude. This gross uncertainty then creates a rhetorical problem. How does one assert consistently and throughout a book such as this that each democide figure, as of the Khmer Rough having killed 2,000,000 Cambodians, is really a numerical haze–that we do not know the true total and that it may be instead 600,000 or even 3,000,000 that they killed? Except in cases where it is difficult to assert without qualification a specific figure (as in the chapter titles), or space and form do not allow a constant repetition of ranges, as in the summary chapter, I will give the probable range of democide and then assert a “most likely” (or “probable” or “conservative”) mid-estimate. Thus, I will conclude in chapter 9 that the Khmer Rouge likely killed from 600,000 to 3,000,000 of their people, probably 2,000,000 (this mid-value is simply a subjective probability and will be discussed shortly). All the appendices will develop and discuss such a range. For sub-totals in the historical description of a case I usually simply mention the mid-value, qualified as mentioned.

The how and why of an alleged democide range then is critical and it is not determined casually. Now, I have elsewhere published the methods that I use7 to assess the democide of a regime, and should point out here summarily that this is an attempt to bracket the unknown and precisely unknowable democide by seeking a variety of published estimates, and most important, the highest and lowest ones from pro and anti-government sources.8 I then consolidated these for different aspects of a regime’s democide, such as for summary executions, prison deaths, or disappearances, into low to high ranges. To get an overall range for a regime, as of that for the Khmer Rouge, I then sum all the consolidated lows to get an overall low democide, the consolidated highs to get an overall high.

The value of this approach lies in the great improbability that the sum of all the lowest estimates for a regime would be above the true total; or that the sum of all the highs would be below it. The fundamental methodological hypothesis here is then that the low and high sums (or the lowest low and highest high where such sums cannot be calculated) bracket the actual democide. This of course may be wrong for some events (like a massacre), an episode (like land reform), or an institution (like re-education camps), but across the years and the many different kinds of democide committed by a regime, the actual democide should be bracketed.

Within this range of possible democide, I always seek a mid-range prudent or conservative estimate. This is based on my reading of the events involved, the nature of the different estimates, and the estimates of professionals who have long studied the country or government involved. I have sought in each case the best works in English on the relevant events so that I would not only have their estimates along with the others, but that their work would guide my choice of a prudent overall estimate. The details of this effort for each case is given in the relevant appendix in the related volume, Statistics of Democide.

Given my admission that I can only come within some range of an actual democide, a range that may vary from low to high by thousands of percent, why then will I so precisely specify a democide? For example, in the chapter for communist China I will give the range of its democide as 5,999,000 to 102, 671,000, most likely 35, 236,000 people killed. Why such apparent and misleading accuracy? Why not simply make the range 5,000,000 to 105,000,000, with a mid-value of 35,000,000? This I would like to do (and have been urged by colleagues to do), but for many cases the democide figures result from calculations on or consolidations of a variety of estimates for different kinds of democide (such as for “land reform,” labor camps, and the “Cultural Revolution”). When all calculations or consolidations are added together the sum comes out with such apparent precision. That is, the low and high and 35,236,000 mid-democide for communist China’s democide are sums. To then give other than these sums can create confusion between the discussion of the cases and the appendices in which the estimates and calculations are given in detail.

I handle this presentation problem in this way. Where specification of the final democide figures calculated in an appendix is necessary, as in a table, I give them with all their seeming exactitude. Where, however, such is unnecessary, I will then round off to the first or second digit and use some adjective such as “near” or “around” or “about.” Thus, communist China’s democide was about 35,000,000.

After eight-years and almost daily reading and recording of men, women, and children by the tens of millions being tortured or beaten to death, hung, shot, and buried alive, burned or starved to death, stabbed or chopped into pieces, and murdered in all the other ways creative and imaginative human beings can devise, I have never been so happy to conclude a project. I have not found it easy to read time and time again about the horrors innocent people have been forced to suffer. What has kept me at this was the belief, as preliminary research seemed to suggest, that there was a positive solution to all this killing and a clear course of political action and policy to end it. And the results verify this. The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.


NOTES

*This is a pre-publisher edited version of the “Preface” in R.J. Rummel’s Death By Government, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994

1. Rummel (1990, 1991, 1992).

2. I started this research in 1986 and the cutoff year for the collection of data was made 1987. For consistency in comparing different cases and to avoid constantly having to change total figures as new democides occurred, I have stuck to the 1987 cutoff. This means that post-1987 democides by Iraq, Iran, Burundi, Serbia and Bosnian Serbs, Bosnia, Croatia, Sudan, Somalia, the Khmer Rouge guerrillas, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and others have not been included.

I start the 19th century with year 1900. I realize that by our calendar the 20th century really begins with year 1901. However, I was uncomfortable with including 1900 in the previous century.

3. See Rummel (Understanding Conflict and War, 1975-81; “Libertarianism and International Violence,” 1983; “Libertarianism, Violence Within States, and the Polarity Principle,” 1984; “Libertarian Propositions on Violence Within and Between Nations: A Test Against Published Research Results,” 1985). While that democracies don’t make war on each other has been verified by others and well excepted by students of international relations, that democracies have the least foreign violence has been controversial and a number of studies allege they find no difference between regimes on this. But this has been due to different and in my view inappropriate methods. I argue that the more democratic (libertarian) a regime, the more the inhibition to war or foreign violence. This therefore should be tested in terms of war’s severity-by the number of people killed either in total or as a proportion of the population. However, other’s have tested this by correlating type of regime with the number of wars it has fought. One should not be surprised, therefore, that they find hardly any correlation between regime and war, since they are treating all wars as alike, where even the tiny democratic wars such as the American invasion of Grenada and Panama or the British Falkland Islands War are given the same weight as World War I or II for Germany or the Soviet Union. In any case, one of the side results of this study is to further substantiate that democracies have the least foreign violence, i.e., that even in war democracies suffer far fewer deaths than other regimes (see Table 1.6 and Figures 1.6, 1.7b, 1.7d, and 1.8).

4. By the Genocide Convention, genocide can refer to other than killing, such as trying to destroy a group in whole or in part by taking away its children.

5. See Note 1.

6. Rummel (1992, p. 5).

7. See Rummel (1990, Appendix A; 1991, pp 309-316).

8. This has caused some misunderstanding among readers. That I use biased or ideological sources, as of communist publications on American atrocities in Vietnam or official Iraq statistics for the death toll among Kurds during the civil war, is part of my attempt to get at the lowest or highest democide or war-dead estimates. There are therefore many items in my references that no self-respecting scholar would list normally. I include them because I use their estimates and not because I believe them objective or of high quality. Moreover, the omission of a particular work from the references does not mean that I have not used it. I have consulted, read, or studied for this work many times more publications than the references list here. I have only included those I have cited in writing a chapter or those from which I have taken the estimates listed in the appendix tables. Those references listed in the Soviet, China, and Nazi democide books are not repeated here unless they also have been cited in this book.


For citations see the Death By Government REFERENCES

%d bloggers like this: