Democide

This is a report of the statistical results from a project on comparative genocide and mass-murder in this century. Most probably near 170,000,000 people have been murdered in cold-blood by governments, well over three-quarters by absolutist regimes. The most such killing was done by the Soviet Union (near 62,000,000 people), the communist government of China is second (near 35,000,000), followed by Nazi Germany (almost 21,000,000), and Nationalist China (some 10,000,000). Lesser megamurderers include WWII Japan, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, WWI Turkey, communist Vietnam, post-WWII Poland, Pakistan, and communist Yugoslavia. The most intense democide was carried out by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where they killed over 30 percent of their subjects in less than four years. The best predictor of this killing is regime power. The more arbitrary power a regime has, the less democratic it is, the more likely it will kill its subjects or foreigners. The conclusion is that power kills, absolute power kills absolutely.

Rest of link

Per the current census the population of the United States, Mexico and Canada is 415,864,922.

The dead even could conceivable be near a high of 360,000,000 people. This is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of absolute power and not germs.

Oh yea it does seem obvious there is a conspiracy

Any thoughts?

Toltec

On a matter of trivia, your total North American population seems low to me.

What is your actual source (more specific than current census)?

From a source with relative reliability (Britannica 2000), I have the 1998 North American population as 466,505,000.

I suspect it is considerably higher today as a result of USA and Mexico. The US is trending to expansion unlike many western countries, and not just through North American internal migration.


* Done additional checks:

PRB (Population Reference Bureau) mid 2003 data

USA 291.5
Canada 31.6
Mexico 104.9

Total these three = 428 million, today, supposedly.

PRB labels 'USA + Canada' as North America and Mexico is lumped with Central & Latin America... *

[Edited on 29-7-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

North America includes Antigua, Baruda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Beleize, Bermuda, Canada,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Greenland, Greneda, Guatemala,
Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinuiqe, Mexico,
Netherland Antillies, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto
Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent
and the Grenadines, Tinidad and Tobago, The United States of America and the Virgin Islands.

So yes the population of all of of those would probably
enter into the amount you are suggesting.

The amount were taken with respect to the most recent census that being 2000 in regards to the US, Canada and Mexico.

I suspect the number of deaths with respect to mass murder to be higher as well. Due to the fact that the conclusions in the link are based upon recorded
events.

Any thoughts?

Toltec

The author enables us to believe they are either estimates, or precise. He enables you to take away anything you want:

"Second, since estimates of democide are very uncertain and often propagandistic, I generally calculated a low to high range of probable democide, the low being the sum of lowest estimates across events for a regime and the high being a similar sum. In this way I tried to bracket the most probable figure, which I then judged or calculated based on the central thrust, objectivity, and quality of the estimates. However, many of the following figures will seem so precise as to belie this cautious approach. The reason for this apparent precision lies in the method by which they were determined, which often involved calculations on dozens and sometime hundreds of estimates."


His conclusion really is very interesting:

"As the arbitrary power of regimes increase left to right in the figure, the range of their democide jumps accordingly and to such a great extent that the low democide for the authoritarian regime is above the democratic high, and the authoritarian high is below the totalitarian low.

The empirical and theoretical conclusion from these and other results is clear. The way to virtually eliminate genocide and mass murder appears to be through restricting and checking power. This means to foster democratic freedom. This is the ultimate conclusion of this project."


So, if your goal is to reduce mass murder, then do not put absolute authority in any regime. How does this fit with the current processes of the regime in the US government ?

MA while I love trips along the disinformation highway as well as the issues of restoring what in this country was once actually a law (patriot act circa 1950s).

An important point to consider is that however one may want to balance the numbers, there is a substantial amount of deaths to consider. However one may feel about this, combating this matter seems relevant to
survival.

We can of course and should address the threat from the context of what may happen (I have no real arguments with respect to that). But it is clear the reality of the situation is that there is a disease in the here and now.

If you think for one moment that a leader in this country can get away with killing a 1/3 of the US population because he does not like what they think you are mistaken.

But obviously with respect to other parts of the world its included as policy.

I am reminded of a story in which fishermen living in a part of Japan would go out fishing for crabs every morning. There was a certain type of crab which had strange makings on it and because of that and the fact they were superstitious, those crabs were always thrown back into the ocean.

Time passed and industrialized fishing became the means of working but still the fishermen when the sorted out the crabs always threw the ones with the makings back into the ocean.

MA do you see where I am getting at here? In the end there was only one type of crab in that area, the ones with the strange markings.

When you have 10,000,000 people who want to be free and 10,000,000 whom are afraid to even bring it up, in one society. And you kill the 10 million who want to be free what do you have left? What about there progeny?


Any thoughts?

1. On murder, I don't condone it, on any grounds.

2. On strange markings, social engineering or population control, it is important to view what is going on in the whole environment and how that impacts on 'the common good' if you believe in it... in the case of those crabs being left alone to breed, yes it is also possible metaphorically that they could indoctrinate other crabs into their 'strange markings'... and the juggling act of absolute freedom of expression against risk to others absolutely freely expressing themselves becomes more difficult as the markings get stranger.

3. On freedom, it is this issue that I call into question in the US. Genocide is not likely in your view, and I won't touch the subject of whether it has ever occurred at any level in the US. But I do feel strongly that the erosion of freedoms through a planned campaign of response to terrorist threats, national security measures and orchestrated lies is detrimental to your cause.

1. I concur

2. Agreed

3. My impression MA on your third point is that the "Cause" as you put it relates to what is actually on the table.

What exactly is a terrorist and from what orientation do terrorist in general hail from?

If my neighbor calls me on the phone and tells me there is a man with a gun in my backyard the most important thing to do is make sure all the doors are locked and that I arm myself with whatever weapon is able to deal with such a problem. If when I make it to the back door I find it wide open and the baby is upstairs crying what is it that must be done.

I assure you that running upstairs at full speed screaming at the top of my lungs, that I have a gun would not be the best thing to do.

Freedom has a price MA just like maintaining the safety of your family.

What is on the table is an unGodly number of dead in the last 100 years and as well, evidence supportive of its continuance (in certain circles).

My impression is that what can be detrimental is to believe that we are not in a crisis, that it is not time to evoke emergency measures. And that there is not in existence today an effort to socially engineer a desire for freedom out of the worlds masses through murder.

MA I am very familiar with the history of this country as well am I familiar with the "Assembly" which as well impressed/imposed itself upon this hemisphere with respect to the last 200+ years (If you wish we can compare notes).

To say the very least it is a big difference.


Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Toltec
North America includes Antigua, Baruda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Beleize, Bermuda, Canada,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Greenland, Greneda, Guatemala,
Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinuiqe, Mexico,
Netherland Antillies, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto
Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent
and the Grenadines, Tinidad and Tobago, The United States of America and the Virgin Islands.

...er... not to be nitpicky, nor appear as I am harassing you: it's as simple as you happens to be the only people that seemed not to put me on ignore

...but... Where is Central America then... . I remember to see Mexico as North or Central America to be a matter of tastes, but there is no doubt that every country soutwards Mexico and northwards South America is, by definition, Central America.

Makod have no idea what you are talking about with respect to placing you on ignore, have never placed you on ignore.

I took that of a list with respect to countries of North America.

Clearly neither is it the topic

[Edited on 30-7-2003 by Toltec]

Toltec

Looks like intercontinental parochialism may occasionally rear its head with respect to distancing Central America from the US?

I think makod thinks we are some of few who don't 'ignore' him. I guess Mods can't 'ignore' anyone actually.

I choose to live in places where the likelihood of anyone entering my back or front yard, armed and with hostile intent, is as close to zero as possible. I concur with you that the probability may change as a result of shifts in the wolrd balance of power.

If you are in the US, then the Bush administration's program of fear and terror (both in responding to, and creating them) has worked on you when you say it is time to invoke emergency measures.

Yes, I also agree with you that US history is very different to history in places where power has been taken exclusively by a small regime. But it is becoming more similar with each passing day.

The role of moderator precludes such an action but to be honest, while a member there was one person I placed on ignore and it was not Makod. And of course when I was made Moderator removed that ignore.

Back to the topic....

MA spent the majority of my life living in major cities and like any others in the world keeping you door locked is second nature.

The main concern presented by me is with respect to the above link you have to admit it is shocking to realize the cold hard facts, this being the numbers presented are not unrealistic.

I feel that the difference between you and me is with respect to confidence not only in the American system but as well with respect to its people. The kind of behavior apparent today throughout the world is simply not tolerated in this country (To further define this paragraph in my impression, is at present unwarranted).

I think the idea that something has been created, as it were, for our consumption. Is as well offered with respect to every atrocity suggested as having occurred in the modern age. That 9/11 is not different does not surprise me, but had those planes hit nuclear plants instead of the damage they did am fairly certain the response would had favored the alternative (especially in the wind had carried the radiation into our farm belt).

The Soviet Union was not a small regime. As I have said considering what can go wrong is realistic. As long as what one realizes what is going on in the here and now in of itself, is a matter to be reckoned with today.

How many more today have been murdered because of what they think, on this planet?

I will stop here and invite your response.

Toltec

I will reflect and give this 'quantification' further thought.

In the interim, I can't help noticing that with the flurry of Republican vs Democrat threads currently being discussed, the title of this Topic (as coined by the author of the article) looks like a Bush administration solution to dissent.



If this administration was flushed down the toilet of history tomorrow as it deserves, I would be happy to look at these questions without the bias of immediate concern for your country and hence my many 'homelands'.

Toltec

Excerpts from another analysis, on topic.

(The treatment of individuals guilty of participating in 'democide' has become a matter of political expediency.)


The killing of Hussein�s sons: the Nuremberg precedent and the criminalization of the US ruling elite
By David Walsh
24 July 2003

There is little doubt that Uday and Qusay Hussein, the two sons of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein killed by US forces in a house on the outskirts of Mosul July 22, were morally and politically reprehensible figures. By all accounts, Uday Hussein, the elder, was a sexual predator and murderer, while Qusay, as chief of Iraq�s notorious security apparatus, had even more blood on his hands. Given the reactionary nature of the regime, there is no reason to doubt the extent and depth of their crimes.

Having said that, both the means by which Hussein�s sons were liquidated and the manner in which the killings were greeted by the American government and media speak volumes about the nature of the US intervention in Iraq and the character of the American political establishment.

On the plane of morality, there exist no fundamental differences between the personnel of the Hussein regime and the Bush administration. The latter operates in every sphere with unashamed lawlessness and violence. If there is a difference in the degree of brutality against its own citizens, the �restraint� exercised by the Bush forces is a matter of circumstance rather than moral superiority over the killers and torturers of the ousted Iraqi regime.........

.... The assault had the character of a gangland slaying, the vengeful wiping out of the cornered leadership of one gang by a more powerful and better-armed outfit. An unnamed senior US military official in Iraq spoke like a Mafia don, telling the UPI: �This is a very beneficial hit. They cannot feel anything other than doom, since if we can take down these guys, we can take down anybody.�

...... The notion that the murders in Mosul will halt Iraqi resistance to the US colonial occupation of that country is wishful thinking of the most politically blinkered variety. The American government and media establishment apparently believes its own propaganda that the only opposition to the US presence is being offered by �holdouts� of the old regime, �terrorists� and �criminals.�

These people are so blind to social and political reality and so distant from the Iraqi people that they cannot conceive of popular resistance that rejects both the Ba�athist regime and foreign imperialist tyranny. Attacks on US forces continue unabated .....

Why were they not taken alive?

Why was no effort made to capture Uday and Qusay Hussein alive? When asked about this, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was in charge of the operation, answered blandly, �Our mission is to find, kill or capture.�

A number of factors come into play. After weeks of US deaths and sagging troop morale, American officials no doubt concluded that a murderous assault would boost the spirits of the war constituency in the US and the psychotic element in the military. In any event, they share the outlook of this constituency and were in need of a bloodletting themselves. The pent-up rage and vindictiveness, in the face of growing Iraqi resistance, expressed itself in the extermination of Hussein�s sons.

More fundamentally, the capture of Uday and Qusay Hussein presented politically troublesome problems. Putting the two former officials on trial would have inevitably raised the issue of the entirely lawless character of the war and occupation. The Hussein brothers would not have found it a great challenge to turn the tables on their prosecutors and expose the hypocrisy and criminality of the Anglo-American operation in Iraq......

..... Beyond the immediate situation in Iraq, there is the equally vexing question of the long-standing relationship between the US government, including some of its current leading officials, and the former Hussein regime......

....... The assassination of the Hussein brothers has further undermined the claim that the US went to war to prevent the Iraqi regime from developing or using weapons of mass destruction (WMD). According to Judith Miller in the July 23 New York Times, Qusay Hussein �was also responsible for overseeing Iraq�s unconventional weapons. ... Stephen Black, a former inspector and chemical weapons expert, said that by virtue of his control of the security services, Qusay would have known, for instance, �whether they had chemical weapons, how many they had, and where they were deployed.� ... Finally, he said, Qusay would have known not the exact hiding places but the �broad brushes of the concealment policy and practices�whether Saddam had destroyed or hidden weapons or the capability for just-in-time production, and what the goals of this concealment were.��

Obviously, by taking the decision to murder Qusay, the US government and military expressed their total lack of interest in the existence of WMD and, in effect, acknowledged that such deadly and dangerous weapons do not exist......

US role at Nuremberg

The bloodlust and lawlessness of the present-day political establishment is placed in sharp relief by comparing its campaign of political assassination in Iraq with the attitude of the US to the treatment of fascist mass murderers captured at the end of World War II.

Less than sixty years ago, Washington opposed the summary execution of the leaders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan�who had committed crimes on a far more massive scale than any carried out by the regime of Saddam Hussein�and insisted they be placed on public trial and accorded all of the legal privileges of due process. The vast contrast between then and now underscores the break with any conception of democratic principles that has occurred within the American ruling elite.

The surviving Nazi leaders were responsible for the deaths, by genocide and war, of tens of millions, yet American officials were scrupulous in demanding that they be captured alive and placed on trial, as they eventually were, at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in 1945-46. Considerable pains were taken to ensure that the defendants not take their own lives. The US was insistent that the defendants be provided with counsel and access to evidence and that they be accorded the right to cross-examine witnesses......

...... The campaign of political assassinations in Iraq is a further demonstration of the criminalization of the American ruling elite.

Toltec

Recent Histories.... and repeating themselves, this time with greater media strength and a greater population of the apathetic and apologist.

CIA's Phoenix Program... 41,000 or 60,000 (depends what you read).

The 'Phoenix' assassination program set up by the CIA murdered 41,000 civilians between 1968 and 1971. Before Congress K. Barton Osborn, a US intelligence officer in the Phoenix program, stated:

... by late 1968 the Phoenix program was not serving any legitimate function that I know of, but rather had gone so wrong that it was a vehicle by which we were getting into a bad genocide program. It became a sterile depersonalized murder program. There was no cross-check; there was no investigation; there were no second options.

Torture was used on almost every "CD" (civilian detainee). Says Michael Uhl, former military intelligence officer in the Phoenix program, "most of our CDs were women and children."

According to Osborn again, "I never knew an individual to be detained as a VC suspect who ever lived through an interrogation in a year and a half, and that included quite a number of individuals. Such atrocities were typical of the US war effort. Many, many other similar massive killing operations were undertaken. Torture and war crimes were routine. To say, with knowledge of the facts, that the US was a "lesser of evils" is simply to apologize for fascism.

In addition, the CIA killed thousands of American civilians. For, to gain the support of anti-communist Laotian and Cambodian landlords who grew opium poppies, the CIA became the major supplier of heroin to the US market. This has been carefully documented in a number of books, Congress held hearings on it. The US government has never even denied it.

Neo-conservatives blame the mass media for "undermining the war effort." This is nonsense. Throughout the war the media were slavishly loyal to US government aims. Cold-war liberals blame the CIA and army for lying about "Viet Cong" strength, the corruption of the Saigon government, etc. Both agree the American people lacked "the will" to "do whatever was necessary" (to kill on an even grander scale, for example).

This last statement is true. The American people's "will to win" was weakened by at least three factors:

a. The "Viet Cong" and North Vietnamese fought magnificently, while South Vietnamese government soldiers fought poorly and deserted in droves.
b. The US army became unreliable. "Fraggings" -- killings of US officers by their own men -- became common. Desertions multiplied. Whole units refused to obey orders. Most US soldiers, of working-class background themselves, recognized they were not on the side of the Vietnamese people.
c. The anti-war movement in the US helped to undermine whatever support of the war existed. It had a great effect on men of military age.

For the first time in US history, a sizeable minority of the population welcomed the defeat of their own army. Despite massive propaganda, despite the powerful effects of patriotism, millions of Americans came to view their own government with the kind of suspicion and distrust usually reserved for the Soviets.

www.chss.montclair.edu...

MA is sounds like you got plenty of rest that is good

I was prepared to vote for Gore and while I am certain Lieberman is a competent man, this was not the time to present to the world a Jewish Vice-president with respect to the United States.

Under the circumstances had Gore been elected my impressions is that the situation we are all in would have fared much worst. Again these thoughts are in relation to the issue's related to Arab relations.

The Saddam sons had a big advantage compared to those captured and tried during WW II. Specifically this is with respect to the state of the art in respect to defenses in relation between 1945 to 2003. In respect to this the analysis is far more likely that had such technology existed in 1945 fewer if any German would have survived to trial.

Those two young men were not engaged in the selling of drugs or liquor, but rather supporters of mass murder. Not only that it is clear that one of the brothers killed himself.

As far as Vietnam the US lost the war because the Viet Cong applied a derivative of tunnel technology, under other circumstances the victory would than probably been that of the US. With respect to the article you posted I need more information with respect to the source and documentation which supports its claim. Nonetheless, the US was fighting a systemof governing which clearly was responsible for killing 100s of millions of people the system governed.

With respect to your link the same applies.

MA if I am the king of Fatherland and you the king of Motherland and you know for certain that I am prepared to kill anyone who disagrees with me. Are you prepared to agree with me even if it means that a 1/3 of your population will die (such are the conditions which existed in respect to the Soviet Union and the US
during the Vietnam conflict).

Tell me, knowing that in reality if I took over your kingdom I would murder 1/3 of your population what to you would be acceptable behavior in stoping me?

The numbers are not lying MA, they are as real as real can be.

Any thoughts?

Toltec

Thoughtful.

I can really only point back in the direction of "Post # 129603" (I hope I have that number right in this world of numbers).

Yes there are external threats.

No there are no threats of imminent takeover of the US.

The purpose of the Bush administration exagerrating the level of threats (lying, make no bones about it) is a political and financial one, not an altruistic or even 'global policing' one. That is damning enough for me.

The world needs structures to prevent both genocides in rogue states, and rogue actions by corrupt administrations such as the incumbent one in the US.

Am I prepared to kill in order to save loved ones? I am going to have a look at the sites that dragonrider recommended on these issues.

I agree that anyone even considering the takeover of the US 5 short of a six pack but as I have described. With respect to damaging the countries ability to carry out its current Madate with respect to the world (feeding it), a potential threat exist.

The Bush administration at best will last another 5 years I see no need to imply that is has the power you portray as realistic. It is important to remember what is taught to every person in this country by 8 grade, the US is run by what is termed the "power elite," having been schooled with respect to a Catholic Cathedral I can go further into this issue. As it was explained to me the American culture is reality is run by a theocracy, its leader is akin to Pharaoh. The Bushes, Clinton's, Regans Nixons and for that matter Kennedies are mealy figureheads who like the rest of us work for a living (for someone else).

Clearly George Bush has admitted error to the suggesting that Saddam Hussein sought nuclear material from Africa.

I am not aware of any other misunderstanding at present.

Again MA you are presenting issues which are related to the future while on the other hand I am talking about the here a now.

In the here and now you are prepared to kill to save a loved one, lying would be a lesser sin.

MA I did try to view the thread you had sugested, would ask that you post a link.
Are you suggesting that lying to save a loved one would be something you would not do?

[Edited on 1-8-2003 by Toltec]

[Edited on 1-8-2003 by Toltec]

Toltec

Under consideration.

As you are aware I find little nuances very interesting.

I adore your reference to '5 short of a six pact'.

On your keyboard, the 't' is not near the 'k' you were looking for.

There is something conscious or unconscious in this.

So, which do you think is the country that is five countries short of a 'six pact'?????