Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as “the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder.” Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the term [genocide], and it has become accepted among other scholars.[1][2][3] According to Rummel, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century.[4][5]


Democide is the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder. Democide is not necessarily the elimination of entire cultural groups but rather groups within the country that the government feels need to be eradicated for political reasons and due to claimed future threats. According to Rummel, genocide has three different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty on genocide, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonlethal acts that in the end eliminate or greatly hinder the group. Looking back on history, one can see the different variations of democides that have occurred, but it still consists of acts of killing or mass murder. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. In order to avoid confusion over which meaning is intended, Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.[6]

The objectives of such a plan of democide include the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups; the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity; and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[7]

Rummel defines democide as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”. For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be considered democide. Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation. Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition. Capital punishment, actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or riot, and the deaths of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military, are not considered democide.[8]

He has further stated: “I use the civil definition of murder, where someone can be guilty of murder if they are responsible in a reckless and wanton way for the loss of life, as in incarcerating people in camps where they may soon die of malnutrition, unattended disease, and forced labor, or deporting them into wastelands where they may die rapidly from exposure and disease.”

Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State, and Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward, which resulted in a famine killing millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies. Famine is classified by Rummel as democide if it fits the definition above.

For instance, Rummel re-classified Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward as democide in 2005. He had believed that Mao’s policies were largely responsible for the famine, but that Mao was misled about it, and finally when he found out, he stopped it and changed his policies. Therefore, thought Rummel, it was not an intentional famine and thus not a democide. However, claims from Jung Chang and Jon Halliday’s controversial Mao: the Unknown Story allege that Mao knew about the famine from the beginning but didn’t care, and eventually Mao had to be stopped by a meeting of 7,000 top Communist Party members. Based on the book’s claims, Rummel now views the famine as intentional and a democide. Taking this into account, the total for Chinese Communist Party democide is 77 million, more than the Soviet Union (62 million), Nazi Germany (21 million), or any other regime in the 20th century.[9]

Research on democide:

Rummel’s sources include scholarly works, refugee reports, memoirs, biographies, historical analyses, actual exhumed-body counts and records kept by the murderers themselves. He estimates the death-toll for each country over the course of a century, along with a low- and a high-end estimate to account for uncertainty. These high-end estimates might be considered absurd estimates by others.

Rummel’s counts 43 million deaths due to democide inside and outside the Soviet Union during Stalin’s regime.[citation needed] This is much higher than an often quoted figure of 20 million. Rummel has responded that the 20 million estimate is based on a figure from Robert Conquest’s 1968 book The Great Terror, and that Conquest’s qualifier “almost certainly too low” is usually forgotten. Conquest’s calculations excluded camp deaths before 1936 and after 1950, executions from 1939–1953, the vast deportation of the people of captive nations into the camps and their deaths 1939–1953, the massive deportation within the Soviet Union of minorities 1941–1944 and their deaths, and those the Soviet Red Army and secret police executed throughout Eastern Europe after their conquest during 1944–1945. Moreover, the Holodomor that killed 5 million in 1932–1934 is also not included.[citation needed]

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

One of his main findings is that liberal democracies have much less democide than authoritarian regimes.[10] He argues that there is a relation between political power and democide. Political mass murder grows increasingly common as political power becomes unconstrained. At the other end of the scale, where power is diffuse, checked, and balanced, political violence is a rarity. According to Rummel, “The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom.” Rummel concludes that concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.”

Several other researchers have found similar results. “Numerous researchers point out that democratic norms and political structures constrain elite decisions about the use of repression against their citizens whereas autocratic elites are not so constrained. Once in place, democratic institutions — even partial ones — reduce the likelihood of armed conflict and all but eliminate the risk that it will lead to geno/politicide.”[11]

For books, articles, data, and analyses regarding democide, see Rummel’s website. In particular, he has an extensive FAQ. He has also made his many sources and the calculations used, from a pre-publisher manuscript of his book Statistics of Democide, available online.

Researchers often give widely different estimates of mass murder. They use different definitions, methodology, and sources. For example, some include battle deaths in their calculations. Matthew White has compiled some of these different estimates.

See also:

Democratic peace theory
Genocides in history
Rummel’s Law
List of genocides by death toll
Jump up ^ Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, Stephen Thane Davis, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001, ISBN 0-664-22251-X Google Books
Jump up ^ Understanding and Preventing Violence: The Psychology of Human Destructiveness, Leighton C. Whitaker, CRC Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8493-2265-0 Google Books
Jump up ^ Contemporary Responses to the Holocaust, Konrad Kwiet, Jürgen Matthäus, Praeger/Greenwood, 2004, ISBN 0-275-97466-9 Google Books
Jump up ^ R. J. Rummel (Feb 1, 2005). “Democide Vs. Other Causes of Death”.
Jump up ^ R. J. Rummel (1998). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900. LIT Verlag. ISBN 978-3825840105.
Jump up ^ Genocide.
Jump up ^ (Lemkin, Raphael. “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe,” 1944.)
Jump up ^ Rummel’s definition.
Jump up ^ R.J. Rummel (2005-11-30). “Getting My Reestimate Of Mao’s Democide Out”. Retrieved 2007-04-09.
Jump up ^ Miracle.
Jump up ^ Genocide.
External links[edit]
R.J. Rummel’s “List of democides in the 20th century”:
R.J. Rummel’s “China’s bloody century “:
Ralph Raico’s “Great Wars and Great Leaders”
John V. Denson’s “The Costs of War”
Definition of Democide—by R.J. Rummel, from his book Death by Government.
Never Again—international genocide prevention group; organized 2004 Rwanda Forum at the Imperial War Museum in London.
Never Again Wiki
Power Kills—Rummel’s website.
Genocides, Politicides, and Other Mass Murder Since 1945, With Stages in 2006 at the Wayback Machine (archived June 18, 2007)—Genocide Watch

Gen. Daniel Bolger: “We need hearings on 9/11, wars”


By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

Gen. Daniel P. Bolger, author of Why We Lost
US Army General Daniel Bolger, a leading commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, has called for hearings on 9/11 and the 9/11 wars.
During an exclusive interview with Truth Jihad Radio, I asked Gen. Bolger whether we needed a new investigation of 9/11 in light of the fact that much of the world, including 80% of Muslims, believe it was a false-flag inside job.
Gen. Bolger replied:
“We need to have public hearings sort of like the 9/11 Commission, for our own people first, for Americans! I mean, you’re American. Wouldn’t you like to know – wouldn’t you like to see not just me, but other people like me, come into a public forum and answer the kind of questions you’re asking me today?”
Indeed I would, I replied – especially if people like Dick Cheney are forced to give their answers under oath. Any half-decent local DA could smash Cheney’s conflicting accounts of what he was doing on 9/11 into pieces in about five minutes.
Gen. Bolger deserves credit for his willingness to engage in serious dialogue with a 9/11 skeptic. And he deserves even more credit for calling for Congressional hearings at which the neocon architects of the 9/11 wars, as well as the military officers who fought those wars, could be grilled under oath.
Though not every US leader is brave enough to say so, the 9/11 wars were a disaster. America’s economy, reputation, and Constitution are all in shambles. Maybe it’s time to go back and figure out where it all went wrong?
Gen. Daniel Bolger makes a good start in his new book Why We Lost: A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The book begins: “I am a US Army General and I lost the Global War on Terrorism. It’s like Alcoholics Anonymous; step one is admitting you have a problem. Well, I have a problem. So do my peers. And thanks to our problem, now all of America now has a problem, to wit: two lost campaigns and a war gone awry.”
Though Gen. Bolger doesn’t quite come right out and say so, I think he understands that the war “went awry” from the very beginning. The whole idea of invading, occupying, and nation-building Afghanistan and Iraq as a response to the dubious events of 9/11 – which clearly had nothing to do with the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq – never made any sense.
From his perspective, it would have been much more sensible to overthrow the Taliban and/or Saddam Hussein and then quit while we were ahead, leaving the people of Afghanistan and Iraq in control of their own destinies. If we really wanted to occupy and nation-build in those countries, he says, we would have had to basically announce that we were staying there forever and turn them into “the 51st and 52nd states.”
Somehow I’m not sure that Americans, much less the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, will ever be quite ready for that.
Why We Lost is a terrific account of Gen. Bolger’s painful experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he fought beside US troops on the front lines and also participated in meetings of top military decision makers. Its only major flaw is its failure to explore alternative explanations of what the US was really doing in the 9/11 wars.
The real reason the US lost, Gen. Bolger admits, is that we had no good answer to the basic question: Who is the enemy? Terrorism, the General admits, is not a realistic enemy. The notion of fighting terrorism, a military tactic consisting of attacking civilians to inspire fear, makes no sense. Instead, he suggests, we should have framed the enemy as “anti-Western Islamists and the ramshackle, quasi-fascist Middle East states that enabled them” (xiv).
But this answer, too, makes no sense. Saddam Hussein was no Islamist. In fact, he ruthlessly suppressed Islamists. The British government has done far more to “enable” Islamists than Saddam’s Iraq ever did. So, for that matter, has the American government. Both the US and Britain have allowed Saudi money to finance some of the most virulent Wahhabi strands of anti-Western “Islamism” inside the West. The CIA even uses “Islamist” fighters to run drugs and attack Russia, and has been doing so ever since the US-supported Afghan jihad of 1979. More recently, they’ve used “Islamists” to destroy Libya and attack Syria and Iraq.
So it’s silly to frame “Islamism” as the enemy. Secular anti-imperialists and anti-Zionists are just as likely to attack Western targets as “Islamist” ones are. The vast majority of the people of the Middle East, whatever their degree of religiosity, are anti-Western in the sense that they oppose Zionism and imperialism. Indeed, the backbone of the Iraqi resistance against US occupation consisted of secularist Saddam Hussein loyalists.
Additionally, many “Islamists” are “anti-Western” mainly in the sense that they don’t like pornography, alcohol, sexualized advertising, usury, and other manifestations of Western decadence. But relatively few “Islamists” hate democracy. Both the leading force of Shi’a Islamism, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the less-successful, less-savvy but still leading force of Sunni Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood, are very strongly pro-democracy.
In fact, Islamists (meaning Islamic political activists) generally LOVE democracy! It is the secular dictators and secular ruling classes in Muslim-majority countries who hate democracy, because they know democracy empowers Islam. The Shah, a secularist, hated democracy, while the Islamic Republic that overthrew him is the most democratic nation in the Middle East. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood loves democracy because it elected President Morsi, while the Jewish-secularist fuhrer al-Sisi has destroyed Egyptian democracy so he and his secularist cronies can continue to loot the country. In Algeria, French-supported secularist thugs crushed the nascent Islamic democracy circa 1990. And on and on it goes.
By 2014, with the US fleeing both Iraq and Afghanistan with its red-white-and-blue tail between its legs, Gen. Bolger writes: “Behind it all, the old question hovered, rarely asked aloud: Who was the enemy? Al-Qaeda. The Taliban. The green-on-blue turncoats. Karzai. The Pashtuns. The Pakistanis. Everyone. It was past time to go.”
And that was the problem. Everyone WAS the enemy. When you invade and occupy someone else’s country, everybody in that country, plus anyone else on earth with a functioning conscience, an active heart and mind, and a shred of integrity, decides that YOU are the enemy.
We have met the enemy and he is us.

America’s tragic flaw, in General Bolger’s view, was “a distinct lack of humility” (431). US leaders thought that because they could quickly and easily overthrow the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, they could be equally successful in imposing their wills in a longer-term occupy-and-nation-build operation. After all, doesn’t the whole world want to be just like us?
To call this line of thinking “lack of humility” is an understatement. Satanic arrogance would be more accurate.
I would add that US decision makers lacked empathy as well as humility: They were unable to grasp how their opponents thought and felt. “We didn’t know our enemy,” Gen. Bolger says. Perhaps the unwillingness to walk a mile in the enemy’s boots was due to an unconscious realization that the enemy was right and we were wrong. If we try to see things from the perspective of people fighting to liberate their countries from occupation, we might realize that those people are the heroes…and we are the villains.
whywelostAn alternative subtitle might have been appropriate: Why We Lost…And Deserved to Lose.
Gen. Bolger describes how occupying troops and occupied trainees had to pretend to be friends…until the occupied trainees would occasionally “express their real feelings” (403) by suddenly killing their US trainers. These “green on blue” attacks, like the fraggings of overly-zealous commanders in Vietnam, sapped morale and exposed the bogus basis of the war.
When someone says “I am from the US government and I am here to help you” even Americans roll their eyes. So imagine how people of countries occupied by US troops feel about the “help” they’re supposedly getting from the foreign soldiers who have slaughtered so many of their countrymen.
Handed such a rotten mission by the criminals who launched the 9/11 wars, Gen. Bolger and most other US soldiers seem to have served according to their sense of honor and duty, given their flawed understanding of what was going on. Why We Lost evocatively describes the sights, sounds, and smells of what it was like to be a soldier in these godforsaken wars, and paints a picture of mostly-decent young men and women trying to serve their county as best they can. It reveals that there is something heroic – flawed, to be sure, but still heroic – in doing your best for a bad cause that you don’t really understand. (I suppose the same could be said about some Islamic State fighters too.)
But ignorance as an excuse can only get you so far. The bottom line is that these young American men and women fought, killed, and died for a monstrous lie. That is the real reason Why We Lost.
Gen. Bolger’s book takes the official version of 9/11 as axiomatic. It completely ignores the real elephant in the living room: the Zionist role in US mideast policy in general and in 9/11 and the 9/11 wars in particular. Most VT readers will find these lacunae annoying.
But despite its inevitable shortcomings, Why We Lost is a terrific (though painful) read. More importantly, it could be a substantial force for good in the world. By facing up to a fair bit of a very unpleasant reality, General Daniel P. Bolger has courageously opened the door for a critical re-examination of America’s most recent – and perhaps most disastrous – wars. By reading his book, heeding his words, and ultimately facing the full truth about this horrendous chapter in our history – including the 9/11 big lie that launched the whole sorry episode – Americans may still have a chance to heal and save their country.

Short URL:

Nov. 15 2014 – The Evidence that forced Pope Benedict to Resign & Verdicts against criminal individuals and institutions

[16:31:09] Kevin Annett: Global Communique from The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS): November 15, 2014

The Evidence that forced Pope Benedict to Resign is Now Available

Documentation of Genocide and Child Murder in Canada – Issued from the court record of The International Common Law Court of Justice, Brussels
(Case Docket No. 02252013, The People v. Joseph Ratzinger, Elizabeth Windsor et al)


The ITCCS has just released the complete set of testimonies and documents that convicted the government and churches of Canada, the Vatican and the Crown of England, and their officers, of planning, committing and concealing crimes against humanity.

These 150 exhibits formed the basis of the verdict of February 25, 2013 that sentenced Pope Benedict, Queen Elizabeth, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and others to twenty five years in prison without parole, and stripped them of their office and authority.

This historic verdict lawfully disestablishes the Crown of England and the Vatican as legitimate bodies, and authorizes the seizure of all church and crown property, lands and assets under the authority of the common law and new constitutional Republics.

Please post and share these historic records, and help our common law sheriffs enforce these verdicts against these criminal individuals and institutions.

Issued 15 November, 2014 by ITCCS Central Office, Brussels – Common Law Court Proceedings – Genocide in Canada (Part One) – 1 hr. 46 mins. – Common Law Court Proceedings – Genocide in Canada (Part Two) – 1 hr. 47 mins. – Final Court Verdict and Sentencing – 8 mins. 30 secs. – Authorizations and Endorsements of ITCCS/Kevin Annett by indigenous eyewitnesses – 10 mins. – Irene Favel, Eyewitness to the incineration of a newborn baby by a priest at Muscowegan Catholic Indian school, Saskatchewan, 1944 – Other key testimonies from our Court case against genocide in Canada

Parents of Michael Brown testify at the United Nations

Global News

WATCH ABOVE: The parents of Ferguson teenager Michael Brown testified before the United Nations Committee Against Torture.

TORONTO – The parents of Michael Brown, a black teenager shot dead by police in Ferguson, Missouri, in August, testified at the United Nations in Geneva to seek justice for their son.

“We have come to the United Nations to take the world stage to talk about the life of Michael Brown and the dreadful way that he lost his life,” Darryl Parks, a lawyer representing the Brown family, told reporters outside of the U.N.

The U.N. Committee Against Torture is holding a panel looking at U.S government’s compliance with an anti-torture treaty, and a series of alleged violations since the 9/11 attacks.

“We came here to the U.N. to get justice for our son,” Michael Brown Sr. told reporters after the panel finished its first day of questioning. “There couldn’t be a better…

View original post 124 woorden meer 11-1-14… “An End to the Crown: Republic of Kanata convenes”

Kauilapele's Blog

republic_of_kanata_button_1[Kp update 1433 HST: as I have mentioned in a few places, like the Kp Radio Hawaii Shows, this certainly looks like what I have seen many countries doing, claiming their sovereignty and operating along side the former system.]

This may be of high interest to all those interest in watching/pursuing “sovereignty” issues. Certainly many in Hawai’i will be looking at this (and their process) as the Kingdom of Hawai’i operation is restored.


An End to the Crown: Republic of Kanata convenes

The Republic of Kanata – Live Free or Die

Special Pre-Convention Bulletin: November 1, 2014

In this Issue:

1. Secretary’s Pre-Convention Report and Regional Updates
2. The Draft Proclamation of Independence and Constitution
3. Local Work: Campaigns, Issues and the Training of Local Leaders


Pre-Convention Report
by Colin Sullivan
Secretary to the Provisional Council for the Republic of Kanata, Winnipeg

Fellow patriots,

Hundreds of new…

View original post 1.580 woorden meer