What is Reddit's opinion of Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

THIS

Source OP is ridiculing is the author’s personal website where just he republished statistics from this book online.

If OP even bothered to scroll to the bottom of the page to read the author’s acknowledgements he’d find “In particular I want to thank [...] Guenter Lewy, Heath Lowry”. The guy did his research and incorporated information from the same scholars that are constantly cited in the Turkish government’s official position.

The numbers could still be off, but that’s always the case, even for the best historians. Unless you have a specific argument about why his numbers are off then don’t criticize the source.

This is one of the dumbest posts I’ve seen on this topic. It boils down to OP saying the web design sucks so it’s not a legitimate source without actually doing the most basic work to investigate what the source actually is.

No. I was just jest-fully alluding to my cynicism regarding the nature of government (that it is corrupt). Read Death by Government for details: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Government-Genocide-Murder-Since/dp/1560009276/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=9Y9JFY2PJEWD&keywords=death+by+government+by+r.j.+rummel&qid=1649466790&sprefix=death+by+gov%2Caps%2C155&sr=8-1

Yes. I am intimately familiar with R.J. Rummel’s work and that of Democide (the word that he coined, effectively a broader “genocide” that refers to ANY mass murder perpetrated by government). Genocide itself is fairly limited in that it does NOT include what scholars call “politicide” or mass murder of persons of a particular political affiliation. The reason for this is that when Raphael Lemkin and the UN were coining the word in the 1940s, Stalin did not want the UN convention on Genocide to include murder of dissidents as “genocide.” So yes... I’m familiar with Democide asa concept and I feel it is very important, and would in fact love to continue to advance the research of Rummel. His book “Death by Government” is excellent by the way if anyone hasn’t read it. It is fairly expensive on amazon, but WELL worth a read. Death by Government https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1560009276/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_K8ltFbYWKM771

Statistics and simple mathematics?

In the 20th century Alone, 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis (including 6 million Jews), 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields. These statistics surpass all the "religious" wars combined.

R.J Rummel,Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, and the man who coined the word "democide" meaning "the murder of a people by their government", documented this thoroughly in his book: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Government-R-J-Rummel/dp/1560009276

It’s important to note that religion had nothing to do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu–Tutsi war in Rwanda, Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian-French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponnesian War, Assyrian wars...

Arkadaslar kusura bakmayin ama bu postu upvote biraz ilginc.

OP'nin gosterdigi eser akademik bir calisma ve yazari da siyaset bilimci. Yale'de de calismis, cok unlu bir profesor. Kitapta kullandigi butun bilgiler de yine universitelerde uretilmis veya arsivlerden toplanmis bilgiler. Yani kaynak bilimsel bir kaynak.

Su anda mesela nukleer enerji veya gunes enerjisi kullaniyoruz, atomu parcaliyoruz falan ya, bu noktaya nasil geldik sizce? Universitelerde, akademik olarak ve bilimsel yolla uretilmis calismalarla degil mi? Birisi bir sey yaziyor, baskalari okuyor, bunun dogrulu kanitlaniyor ve bilimsel ilerleme yasaniyor.

Heh, bu adamin yazdigi da boyle bir sey iste. Tarihsel bilimsel surecin bir parcasi. Dalga gecebilecegimiz, ahahah sacmalik diyebilecegimiz bir sey degil. Karsisina kendi bilimsel makalelerimizle, arsivsel kanitlarimizla cikabilecegimiz bir sey.

Edit: /u/bokavitch'in de bahsettigi gibi buradaki bilgiler Death by Government isimli bir kitabin yazari olan profesorun resmi sitesinden alinmis durumda. Ancak bilgiler ilk olarak o kitapta basiliyor.

Kitabin amazon linki: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Government-R-J-Rummel/dp/1560009276 Ucretsiz indirip incelemek isterseniz de bu link var: https://libgen.pw/item/adv/5a1f054a3a044650f50e8e47

Death By Government, written by R.J. Rummel. An exhaustive study of genocides during the 20th century. Enjoy the grim read.

In case anyone else is interested:
Death by Government by Rudolph J. Rummel (Free-PDF)
Democide explanation and Rummel review on YT (The Madness of Men 2021)

>"This is R. J. Rummel's fourth book in a series devoted to genocide and government mass murder, or what he calls democide. He presents the primary results, in tables and figures, as well as a historical sketch of the major cases of democide, those in which one million or more people were killed by a regime." - Amazon Review

Very Interesting, thank you.

Tight direction? I'm going to assume you meant right.

There are three big reasons that I believe guns are necessary and good for society.

Basically, there are about 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year according to the CDC. According to the FBI there are about 15,000 gun homicides every year. To put it bluntly, self-defense is very important and law-abiding gun owners stop crime every day.

Another reason is the necessity to resit a tyrannical government. Approximately 169 million people were killed by their government in the 20th century. I don't expect you to buy a book, so here is the poorly formated version of the book. This would mean that at 15,000 homicides per year, it would take 11,267 year for there to be more homicides deaths than deaths from the government in 100 years. This is obviously extremely unlike to need to resist the tyrannical government, but it does happen and is something that needs to be thought about.

The final reason is that it is a basic human right. I don't like to go into philosophy on Reddit often, but most people agree self-defense is a basic human right. So to compare it to voting, if you have the ability to vote, but you must pay 100 million dollars to vote, most would agree that you don't actually have the right to vote. or to put that you don't have the right to vote. Similarly, if someone is 250 lbs, and is 6 foot, vs a 5 food 100 lb person, that 5 foot 100 lb person does not actually have the right to self-defense. The greatest equalizer is a firearm. Allowing citizens to own guns also ensures that they are at least have a level fighting chance against a criminal with a gun.

If you have a question about my opinion on guns or disagree with anything I have said, I welcome to debate or questions.

>I mean come on, do you think gun ownership has nothing to do with the US’s running title of highest homicide rate in the western world by a mile?

Yes. I think that homicides would stay at the same rate or even increase if guns were banned in the US.

>You think the guns aren’t inflating that a little bit?

No, I don't think they are.

>Unfortunately for the ‘good people’, victims defend themselves with guns in only 0.9% of crimes

This statistic is extremely vague. If you take it literally, there were 10,085,210 crimes committed each year. If you only take it to mean violent crimes, then that is 1,203,808 crimes. This means that there are 90,800 or 10,800 DGUs respectively. So I would love to know which one it is referring to and why this 0.9% statistic matters.

>It’s almost like gun violence happens so quickly you don’t have a time to prepare your defence like you’re in an 18th century duel. (And It’s pretty funny to me that according to this study by Harvard most people who think they’ve used their gun in ‘self defence’ are actually straight up using them to escalate arguments.. which is illegal.)

You would be surprised on how DGUs happen. Most DGUs are from a "third party" where the bad guy is not focusing on the law-abiding gun owner. So this does not really matter that they happen quickly, as normally in most scenarios the gun owner is not immediately targeted.

Furthermore, almost no gun owner has their gun to defend against a gun battle. For example, a woman that is carrying a gun may have it for self-defense against rape or sex trafficking. In this case, its not a gun fight and the firearm would be effective.

You bring up a good point though, gun fights. The government has killed 169,000,000 in the 20th century. Since I don't expect you to buy the book, here is a shitty formatted version of the book. So lets assume 15,000 people are murdered from guns every year in the US. It would take 11,267 years for more people to die of homicide than the government, The most important function of having an armed public is to resist a tyrannical government. This debate is not only a debate about gun control and homicides on a year-to-year basis but also the need to revolt against a tyrannical government.

This also doesn't even mention the Harvard study that says people escalate fights. The study doesn't mention how they are used to deescalate fights. I am also not even going to go into the bias of Harvard when it comes to guns. It seems as they only come up with anti-gun statistics. Even Kleck (the guy that predicted there are 500,000 to 2.5 million DGUs) has admitted statistics that could be used as anti-gun.

>I guess my outlook is, at the end of the day, there may always be bad people, but I’m sure we can both agree it’s a lot easier to outrun a bad person with a knife. And it’s also a lot physically and psychologically harder to stab someone to death in a fit of anger than it is to shoot them, so that protects a lot of domestic abuse victims

Domestic abusers are not allowed to own a gun... So how does it protect the victims? Also, the physiological factor you are referring to is all relative. To people gunning down people in the streets, they obviously don't care, why would they care if they used a knife.

Also, this assumes when you ban guns that criminals will not have guns. This leads me to two questions. 1) how would you ban guns in the US? If you go door to door, that would probably not even be able to find every gun in the US. It would also probably start a civil war because many are willing to die for their basic human rights. A voluntary buyback would only have the good guys turning in guns. Literally leaving criminals with the only guns. 2) How would you ensure that guns do not get into the country when we cant even keep drugs out? (I think drugs should be legal, but that's besides the point)

>So you’re alright. Rest assured this will just remain a little hypothetical fantasy of mine and you can keep your guns

Well, I keep my guns because of 3 big views. Defending against a tyrannical government, more good guys with guns means fewer bad guys killing people, and because it is a basic human right. If you can convince me that these are wrong or irrelevant, then I will gladly join your side and eventually (if you are right) make America a better place. This is more than just a hypothetical, it's a reality that needs to be discussed.

Have someone read "Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900" by R. Hummel

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Government-Genocide-Murder-Since/dp/1560009276

There's probably a PDF out there somewhere also

	

	

	

> # Socialism Worked in Venezuela | AIER > >
>
> Image > > Political conservatives often deride socialism because, in their words, “it doesn’t work.” By this, they mean socialism doesn’t deliver liberty, prosperity, or peace but, instead, tyranny, poverty, and war. Although the facts certainly support this critique, the logical premise underlying the critique does not. To declare that something works (or not) implicitly assumes a standard of measurement. Which one do conservatives use? > > Conservatives seem to blithely presume that socialists intend to deliver liberty, prosperity, and peace. But where’s the evidence for that claim, beyond mere self-serving socialist rhetoric and demagoguery? Why assume that socialists seek progress when their many “experiments” over the past century make clear, to anyone aware of the history, that socialist systems repeatedly, ineluctably, and inherently inflict human harm? > > Even socialist despots now concur with conservatives that socialism doesn’t work. A recent headline reads “Venezuela's President Admits Economy Has Failed.” The despot is Nicolás Maduro, who last month told the Venezuelan congress that “the production models we’ve tried so far have failed, and the responsibility is ours, mine and yours.” Maduro is an avowed socialist in the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. > > No mystery there. Since his election in 2013, Maduro has accelerated the socialization of that once-rich nation, causing a severe economic contraction, capital flight, refugees, worsening poverty, hyperinflation, shortages, rising mortality rates, malnutrition, and starvation. For many years prior, Maduro was a minister in the socialist regime of his predecessor and hero, the late Hugo Chávez, who initiated the latest socialization without apology. Venezuelans elected Chávez four times between 1999 and 2012. > > Neither Chávez nor Maduro presented himself as anything other than socialist. They knew what they were aiming at, and voters knew what they were getting. The ultimate details may have differed, but the basic results were generally expected. Why should they regret the results? Did someone expect instead to get liberty, prosperity, and peace? Did some prefer capitalism but could find no political party to represent their wish? Perhaps the voters were duped because Chávez and Maduro promised public ownership of the means of production and a redistribution of wealth. The first occurred; the second didn’t. But isn’t that always the way with socialism? As Jack Nicholson put it to his evading, lying client in the movie Chinatown (1974), “There’s no time to be shocked by the truth.” > > “Redistribution” is but a euphemism for legalized grand larceny; you don’t create wealth by stealing it, any more than you multiply it by dividing it. Moreover, don’t the means of production include not only machines but people — that is, laborers? When human capital is publicly owned, it’s akin to slavery. Why today would it remain a mystery, to any people anywhere, that government ownership of people is inhumane? > > As mentioned, the historical facts support the conservative critique of socialism. That socialist systems have impoverished and killed more than 100 million people over the past 100 years is a matter of established historical record. The gruesome evidence through the end of the 20th century, which is indisputable, is compiled in R.J. Rummel’s Death by Government (1994) and in The Black Book of Communism (1999). > > Socialists are anxious to insist, of course, that none of the horrors of socialism have been due to socialism, that true socialism has yet to be tried, and that it’s only coincidental that “socialist” appears as part of the names United Socialist Party (PSUV) in Venezuela, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in Russia, National Socialist (Nazi) Workers’ Party in Germany, and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the latest fad group for some of the young. These were irrelevant cases of mistaken identity, claim socialists, who add that real socialism now exists in the Nordic countries, even though those countries have no significant public ownership of the means of production. Socialists are unashamedly contradictory when claiming that the USSR wasn’t socialist, but Denmark is. > > In addition to implicitly complimenting socialists by assuming they want liberty, prosperity, and peace, conservatives also try to educate socialists about the principles of sound economics to show how private property, sound money, a free price system, and the profit motive ensure economic success, while communal ownership, fiat money, price controls, and punitive taxation necessarily bring economic ruin. It’s all quite true, of course. But what if socialists already know this stuff and don’t care? What if they recognize sound economics but evade it because they have other priorities? Suppose they agree with their hero Karl Marx, who wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) that capitalism is a vital, energetic, productive engine, yet morally evil because it is so egoistic, individualist, and rights-obsessed? Perhaps demagogues and despots keep promising socialism, and victims keep accepting it, because both consider it to be moral, even though destructive. > > In their critiques of socialism and interventionism, conservatives also like to cite the law of unintended consequences, which says the well-laid plans and policies of political-economic leaders often yield the precise opposite results of what’s intended. Likewise, the common cliché says that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Again, notice the underlying (but unproven) premise: the intentions are good. > > Is this always true? When Maduro concedes that his models have failed, in the sense that they’ve destroyed Venezuela’s economy, does it make him less socialist? Might his constituents now become pro-capitalist? Does he consider the possibility that capitalism’s underlying ethic is moral after all, while that of socialism is larcenous, unjust, and punitive? Unlikely. Socialists are crazy like a fox. That is, they know their intended prey (capital) and they’ll do whatever it takes to seek it out, take it, kill it, and eat it, with nary a thought about the future. > > Of course, one should never argue by impugning, without evidence, an opponent’s inner motives or intentions. But sometimes aims and goals are named explicitly. Even when not, it seems perfectly fair to conclude that whenever certain ideologues keep pushing for a social-political-economic system that invariably proves disastrous, they probably prefer disaster. Nihilists exist, after all. Many conservatives simply assume that they know the socialists’ motives, and without much evidence, presume that they’re benevolent. > > Conservatives seem unaware that socialists don’t expect their system to work in the sense of creating liberty, prosperity, and peace. First and foremost, they expect it to work to seize the means of production, human capital included. Then they expect it to entail, in their own words, a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” They expect it’ll destroy liberty and prosperity. In this sense, history demonstrates unequivocally that socialism works wonderfully. > > That destruction was Marx’s main aim is clear from his Manifesto of the Communist Party. The hoped-for anti-capitalist revolution, he wrote, would be a “radical rupture of traditional property relations,” for it first would “raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy,” and then, with its “political supremacy,” the rulers would “wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie,” an act that “cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property.” That was “unavoidable.” The takeover would occur “by means of measures which appear economically insufficient and untenable.” > > Marx was right to concede that socialism is “economically untenable.” It’s only the flip-side to his equally true concession that capitalism is productive. What he knew, socialists have known for years. In fact, socialism is worse than untenable. It’s destructive and inhumane. Conservatives should know that socialists know of their own destructive intent and should oppose them, instead of implicitly praising them. > > > > > > >

> (continues in next comment)

Death by Government by R. J. Rummel

Read a book

...

Or click a link.

Either way, please catch a clue.

>My God, your only proving my point even further.

Lol, are you really bad at math? 10,000<10,000,000. I can see that you are not going to be honest.

>My fucking God damn your old. Do you still think we're in the Cold War or something?

I am old. I am actually a retiree but, most importantly, I am not stupid. This thread has been about US actions from 1941 to 1991, which essentially corresponds to the Cold War. Are you incapable of reading the thread, or are you just here to pump out anti-American bullshit?

>Where the fuck did you hear that Russia has helped subvert China.

It's called history. Do they not teach it in your country? Bolshevik-modeled and supported subversion of China, culminating in Mao's murderous reign, with tens of millions starved, tortured and murdered, just as they had been in previous decades in Russia. Russian training, Russian support, Russian recognition of Chinese territorial claims, same result: millions of innocent people dead.

>The only reason Russia has the the illusion of power on the world stage is Putin...

You misspelled nuclear weapons.

>he is a expert chess player and is phenomenal at statecraft.

Is he better at chess than running a country? I would not call blowing up an apartment building, killing 293 innocent Russians to accelerate his consolidation of power phenomenal, just typical of Russian autocrats.

>Now on to the "torturing and murdering of tens of millions of people" Russia may or may not have done this (and I would be surprised if they did) but considering how you talk about geopolitics, I doubt you have any evidence for this (but please do share it with us).

You should be so ashamed for lying so much. I know that your parents would be. Gulag has come to mean the Russian repressive system itself, the set of procedures that prisoners once called the "meat-grinder": the arrests, the interrogations, the transport in unheated cattle cars, the forced labor, the destruction of families, the years spent in exile, the early and unnecessary deaths. 7 to 10 million Ukrainians starved and murdered. This is why Ukraine is currently trying to fight off a Russian invasion. You are so profoundly ignorant of the world that I no longer know what to say. You need to do a lot of reading about the world. There are plenty of thorough books that describe the horrific torture, murder and starvation of about 60 million innocent Russians throughout the 20th century. It's not like Russia ever stops torturing and murdering innocent people. You need decades of catching up to understand the world today. As it is, you are not even paying attention to what I've written.

Edit: spel badd

> 77 million deaths is total misinformation

Oh, is your scholarship on the Red Dynasty's crimes somehow superior to Dr. Rummel's? Please direct me to your publications.