genocide risks


Dee Finney's blog

start date July 20, 2011

today's date December 20, 2013

page 611


NOTE:  This morning, I had a very vivid dream and it took place right here in my own back yard.  In the dream, I was standing at the back door, and saw a long black car back up the driveway and stop across from my back door.  I didn't see anyone in the car, not even a driver.  I turned to yell for Joe to come to the door and see the black car out there, but I couldn't scream out loud and he never heard me.

This dream haunted me all day as to 'who' was going to die that I knew.  I didn't want it to be a personal death, and I begged spirit not to be anyone I knew or loved.

LATER:  I was meditating and I started seeing a list of numbers.  They were strange numbers - separated on a line somewhat like our Social Security number is - but longer.

It came to me that it meant  NUMBER OF DEATH.






The term “genocide” is one of those controversial terms that can lead to all kinds of problems. The problem is that the term has been so politicized, and frequently used to attack leaders or countries that one dislikes, that it has come to mean different things to different people. For instance, the term has frequently been used to describe what white settlers did to the Native Americans over the last few centuries, when much of the indigenous population of the United States was wiped out. However, the overwhelming majority of those deaths were due to smallpox being inadvertently introduced into a native population that lacked the biological means to resist it which, while devastating, was not a genocide as it was not done intentionally.

For something to qualify as genocide, it has to be a deliberate, calculated decision by a particular ethnic or religious group, leader, or a government to exterminate, or otherwise destroy, a specific group of people for religious, cultural, racial, or political reasons. This can be done either through direct action (murder) or through indirect means (deportation or starvation). Using this general definition, then, what were the most horrific acts of genocide committed throughout history? It will always be something of an exercise in subjectivity to determine which were the worst, as how does one go about measuring such a thing? Is it a matter of sheer number of victims? Duration? Political ramifications? Nevertheless, here is my attempt to list the ten largest, most horrific, or best-known genocides in human history.

10. Genocides of the Amalekites and Midianites


Lest anyone imagine that genocide is a uniquely modern phenomena, it should be known that it was not only condoned, but even supposedly ordered by, God Himself against two of ancient Israel’s arch-enemies, the Amalekites and the Midianites—at least according to the Old Testament. While extremely localized, and probably resulting in the deaths of no more than a few tens of thousands of people over a number of decades, it does testify to the fact that the desire of one group to exterminate another for any number of reasons has been around as long as civilization itself. The only difference is that, today, humanity possesses the technology required to carry it out on a truly massive scale.

9. North Korea (1945-present)


How many people have died inside the “worker’s paradise” will probably never been known with anything approaching certainty, but the fact is that Pyongyang has been at war with its own people since “The Great Leader”, Kim Il-Sung, first assumed power in 1945. Certainly several million peasants have died of starvation since the mid-1990s, with aid and human rights groups charging that North Korea has systematically and deliberately prevented food aid from reaching the areas most devastated by food shortages. And of course, this doesn’t include the nearly one million people—including women and children accused of the most superficial ”crimes”—who have died in North Korea’s political prison camps over the last 65 years. Were it not being propped up by its lone ally, China, it would have likely imploded long ago. As it is, it remains a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode.

8. Expulsion of Ethnic Germans after World War II (1945)


Many scholars consider this more of a population transfer, rather than a true genocide. However, the forced displacement of some 14 million ethnic Germans and allied Slavs from Soviet Russia, from occupied areas of Eastern and Central Europe in the aftermath of World War II, has to go down as something pretty close to genocide, especially when one considers that between half a million and two million of them didn’t survive the journey. While most of these deaths were from famine and disease, many German civilians were also executed outright, or sent to internment and labor camps by the Soviets—especially those known to or suspected to have had Nazi associations. What makes it genocidal in nature was that only Germans were targeted, and that the brutal policy of forced relocation was ordered by Stalin himself, specifically as a means of retribution.

7. Partition of India (1947)


This is one of the few genocides in history that was not politically motivated nor orchestrated by any government, but rather occurred spontaneously. All of it was the result of the partition of Great Britain’s largest and most important colony, India, in 1947. The powers-that-be decided to partition the massive state into Hindu and Muslim sections (creating modern-day India and Pakistan respectively), a decision which left millions of Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs on the wrong side of the newly-formed border. This resulted in millions being uprooted from their homes and being forced to walk hundreds of miles to their new homes; during this great exodus, however (which affected upwards of 14 million people), escalating violence broke out between the various religious factions, leading to up to one million deaths (most of it centered around the densely populated Punjab region).

In effect, many Muslims were killed by Sikh and Hindu mobs, while many Sikhs and Hindus suffered at the hands of Muslim mobs in Pakistan. It’s difficult to label this a true act of genocide, however, as it was not specifically instigated by either the Pakistani or Indian governments. However, their inability to stop what was basically a spontaneous outburst of brutality on both sides contributed greatly to the carnage. This event specifically stands out as being one of the few genocides to be almost entirely religion-based, and to be engaged by several religions simultaneously.

6. The Rwandan Massacre (1994)


While we like to imagine that genocides are generally politically motivated, Rwanda is an example in which it was mostly the result of tribal differences. The short-lived killing spree, which left between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people dead, was the culmination of longstanding ethnic competition and tensions between the minority Tutsi. It seems that the Tutsi had controlled the country for centuries, lording their position of power over the majority Hutus, until they were overthrown in a 1962 Hutu rebellion. Tensions remained high after that and eventually erupted into full-blown war when, in April of 1994, Hutu President Habyarimana died under mysterious conditions in a plane crash. This elicited bloody reprisals by Hutus against their Tutsi neighbors in retaliation.

While not specifically orchestrated by the Hutu-led government, scholars maintain that the spontaneous, and violent, reaction to the assassination was encouraged by the Rwandan armed forces and largely carried out by Hutu militias, with the full knowledge and blessing of the government, making it directly culpable. Also responsible for the massacre was the unwillingness of the UN, or other western powers, to take decisive action early on. The UN even went so far as to evacuate what few troops it had in the country, to prevent harm from befalling them! President Bill Clinton has since admitted that his lack of timely action in Rwanda remains the greatest mistake of his Presidency. How different things might have been, had only the world had the backbone to have done something.

5. The Armenian Genocide (1915-1923)


While they are loathe to discuss it today, the Ottoman Turks, under the leadership of War Minister Enver Pasha (1881-1922), may have conducted the first large-scale, organized genocide of the 20th century. During and immediately after the First World War, Turkey killed, deported, and starved to death as many as 1.8 million Armenians, along with hundreds of thousands of other non-Turks. The Ottomans may have also been the first to introduce the concept of the concentration camp, though most of these camps were short-lived.

Modern Turks generally refuse to acknowledge what happened to have been genocide, considering it simply a mass deportation of people who had allied themselves with the Russians (a nation Turkey was at war with at the time), and who largely died from exhaustion or neglect during forced marches. Most genocide scholars, however, consider it to have been an orchestrated effort at exterminating an unwanted ethnic group that had lived within the borders of the crumbling Ottoman Empire for centuries. Not surprisingly, it remains a touchy subject among modern Turks to this day, not to mention angry Armenians with guitars.

4. The Killing Fields of Cambodia (1975-1978)


When the Khmer Rouge overthrew the government of Cambodia in 1975, and established a Communist “utopia” in its place, its first act was to annihilate anyone it deemed to be an “enemy of the state”. This included not only former members of the old regime and military, but journalists, teachers, businessmen, intellectuals, Buddhists, and even people who simply wore glasses! While the total number of people who died in this short-lived, but grisly, purge will never be known, it is estimated that no fewer than two million people (nearly 20% of Cambodia’s population) died at the hands of the Khmer. Had it not been for a Vietnamese invasion in 1979 that toppled the Khmer and sent them into hiding, the toll would undoubtedly had been higher still. You know you’re bad when your government is overthrown by a fellow Communist regime!

3. The Holocaust (1939-1945)


No genocide is as well-known, or as carefully documented, as the efforts of  the Nazis to exterminate not only the Jews from continental Europe, but millions of others it deemed “undesirable.” By the time Hitler shot himself in his Berlin bunker in April of 1945, some eleven million people—over half of them Jews—had died, either through mass extermination, deportation, or starvation and overwork in his prison camps. This was all part of a brutal policy that much of the world either refused to believe was happening, or chose to ignore until the first camps were liberated by the Allies in the spring of 1945.

What’s especially interesting in this case is that, unlike Russia and China, Germany had no history of such cruelty beforehand (at least on such a large scale), and was even considered to have been one of the most educated and cultured societies in the world at the time it fell under Hitler’s spell. This should serve as a warning that no country is immune from becoming a killing field under the right circumstances and with the right leader, as millions of Germans had to learn the hard way in World War II.

2. The Stalinist Era in the USSR (1929-1953)


While most people imagine Adolf Hitler to have been the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century (the aforementioned Mao Zedong not withstanding), the prize actually goes to Joseph Stalin, the man who turned his entire nation into one massive prison camp and extermination center. How many died under his direct instructions, or merely as a result of his failed agricultural policies, will never be known with certainty, but some estimates put it as high as twenty million. The Soviet elimination of a social class, the Kulaks, and the subsequent killer famine among all Ukrainian peasants, killed at least two million alone, while Stalin’s notorious 1937 Order No. 00447, that called for the mass execution and exile of “socially harmful elements” as “enemies of the people”, decimated the military and intelligentsia of Russia, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, and millions more languishing in Stalin’s massive gulag.

Had he not had the good manners to die in 1953 before he could institute another purge of Jews and other “enemies of the State,” the numbers of death would have swelled even more. Curiously—and despite all of this—the man was much admired by people who lived outside of Russia during this time, and the always-smiling and benevolent-looking “Uncle Joe” even made it onto the cover of Time magazine no fewer than eleven times.

1. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in China (1949-1976)


While it’s almost impossible to determine precisely how many people died at the hands of the Communists when they came to power in 1949 and in the decades that followed, estimates range anywhere from 45 to 70 million people, depending on whom you ask. While some of these occurred when Communist forces finally vanquished the Nationalist Army of Chang Kai-Shek, most of them took place later and came largely in two main waves; the first was during the “Great Leap Forward”, when China’s leader Mao Zedong’s attempt at agricultural modernization and social engineering led to mass starvation between 1958 and 1961, and the death of many former land owners. While not a specific effort to eradicate a population, what made it genocidal in nature was the fact that Mao continued his policies long after they were obviously proven to be disastrous, thereby dooming millions of peasants to starvation.

The second great genocide was a result of what was called the “Cultural Revolution” of 1966 to 1976—a bloody purge of “anti-government elements” that left millions dead or languishing in prison camps throughout China. It was only upon the death of Mao that the worst of the killings ended, though the brutal crushing of the Tienanmen Square protesters in 1989 demonstrated that Beijing's violent tendencies did not entirely die with the man.

Other Noteworthy Examples: The Destruction of Carthage during the Third Punic War (146 BCE) is often considered the first historically recorded genocide in history; The forced repatriation of the Cherokee Indians from Florida in 1830 resulted in the death of some 4,000 Indians out of 17,000 who made the trip during the famous Trail of Tears incident; Genghis Khan’s Mongol horsemen of the 13th century were well-known genocidal killers, known for wiping out entire nations in their quest to expand their empire; German General Lothar von Trotha wiped out some 100,000 native tribesmen in Southwest Africa (modern Namibia) between 1904 and 1907 in what is often considered the first organized state genocide; and Saddam Hussein’s efforts at exterminating the Kurds during the 1980′s, which included using chemical agents against Kurdish towns.


Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the library of official rights of Guatemala the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Raphael Lemkin, in his work Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), coined the term "genocide" by combining Greek genos (γένος; race, people) and Latin cīdere (to kill).

Lemkin defined genocide as follows: "Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups." The preamble to the CPPCG states that instances of genocide have taken place throughout history] but it was not until Raphael Lemkin coined the term and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the Nuremberg trials that the United Nations agreed to the CPPCG which defined the crime of genocide under international law.

During a video interview with Raphael Lemkin, the interviewer asked him about how he came to be interested in this genocide. He replied; "I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. First to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action."

There was a gap of more than forty years between the CPPCG coming into force and the first prosecution under the provisions of the treaty. To date all international prosecutions of genocide, the Rwandan Genocide and the Srebrenica Genocide, have been by ad hoc international tribunals. The International Criminal Court came into existence in 2002 and it has the authority to try people from the states that have signed the treaty, but to date it has not tried anyone.

Since the CPPCG came into effect in January 1951 about 80 member states of the United Nations have passed legislation that incorporates the provisions of the CPPCG into their domestic law, and some perpetrators of genocide have been found guilty under such municipal laws, such as Nikola Jorgic, who was found guilty of genocide in Bosnia by a German court (Jorgic v. Germany).

Critics of the CPPCG point to the narrow definition of the groups that are protected under the treaty, particularly the lack of protection for political groups for what has been termed politicide (politicide is included as genocide under some municipal jurisdictions). One of the problems was that until there was a body of case law from prosecutions, the precise definition of what the treaty meant had not been tested in court, for example, what precisely does the term "in part" mean? As more perpetrators are tried under international tribunals and municipal court cases, a body of legal arguments and legal interpretations are helping to address these issues.

The exclusion of political groups and politically motivated violence from the international definition of genocide is particularly controversial. The reason for this exclusion is because a number of UN member nations insisted on it when the Genocide Convention was being drafted in 1948. They argued that political groups are too vaguely defined, as well as temporary and unstable. They further held that international law should not seek to regulate or limit political conflicts, since that would give the UN too much power to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.[10] In the years since then, critics have argued that the exclusion of political groups from the definition, as well as the lack of a specific reference to the destruction of a social group through the forcible removal of a population, was designed to protect the Soviet Union and the Western Allies from possible accusations of genocide in the wake of World War II.

Another criticism of the CPPCG is that when its provisions have been invoked by the United Nations Security Council, they have only been invoked to punish those who have already committed genocide and have left a paper trail. It was this criticism that led to the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1674 by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006 which commits the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict and to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. To supplement this proactive stance, the international community at the UN adopted the Responsibility to Protect at the 2005 World Summit, which states that governments and states have the primary responsibility of preventing and deterring these four high crimes from impacting their own populations. Should the government of any country manifestly fail in this responsibility, the UN has resolved to act collectively to stop the immediate manifestations of these crimes.

Genocide scholars such as Gregory Stanton have postulated that conditions and acts that often occur before, during, and after genocide—such as dehumanization of victim groups, strong organization of genocidal groups, and denial of genocide by its perpetrators—can be identified and actions taken to stop genocides before they happen. Critics of this approach such as Dirk Moses assert that this is unrealistic and that, for example, "Darfur will end when it suits the great powers that have a stake in the region".

Others, notably Adams’ “Genocides Roots in the Overpopulation Cycle,”  holds that genocide occurs as unsustainable civilizations decline, suffering shocks that accompany economic earthquakes. “Hungry, frightened, scared masses demand survival and reassurance. Opportunistic leaders may now benefit by sacrificing 'others, outsiders' for the sake of supporters in leaders’ quests for power and influence.”[16] Once overwhelming pains precondition our human overpopulation-violent psychology, genocidal explosions await what Adams called the “holocaustic spark.” 

Genocide as a crime

International law

After the Holocaust, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws defining and forbidding genocide. In 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that "affirmed" that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which legally defined the crime of genocide for the first time.

The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

The first draft of the Convention included political killings, but the USSR along with some other nations would not accept that actions against groups identified as holding similar political opinions or social status would constitute genocide, so these stipulations were subsequently removed in a political and diplomatic compromise.

The Convention was manifestly adopted for humanitarian and civilizing purposes. Its objectives are to safeguard the very existence of certain human groups and to affirm and emphasize the most elementary principles of humanity and morality. In view of the rights involved, the legal obligations to refrain from genocide are recognized as erga omnes.

When the Convention was drafted, it was already envisaged that it would apply not only to then existing forms of genocide, but also "to any method that might be evolved in the future with a view to destroying the physical existence of a group".
 As emphasized in the preamble to the Convention, genocide has marred all periods of history, and it is this very tragic recognition that gives the concept its historical evolutionary nature.

The Convention must be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms, in their context, and in the light of its object and purpose. Moreover, the text of the Convention should be interpreted in such a way that a reason and a meaning can be attributed to every word. No word or provision may be disregarded or treated as superfluous, unless this is absolutely necessary to give effect to the terms read as a whole.

Genocide is a crime under international law regardless of "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war" (art. I). Thus, irrespective of the context in which it occurs (for example, peace time, internal strife, international armed conflict or whatever the general overall situation) genocide is a punishable international crime.

— UN Commission of Experts that examined violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia]

Intent to destroy

In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that in 1992 the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group and that this was still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide.

In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. It noted that International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had agreed with the narrow interpretation, that biological-physical destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide. The ECHR also noted that at the time of its judgement, apart from courts in Germany which had taken a broad view, that there had been few cases of genocide under other Convention States municipal laws and that "There are no reported cases in which the courts of these States have defined the type of group destruction the perpetrator must have intended in order to be found guilty of genocide".

In part

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law]The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004) paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."

In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in combination with other factors—inform the analysis."

CPPCG coming into force

After the minimum 20 countries became parties to the Convention, it came into force as international law on 12 January 1951. At that time however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) were parties to the treaty: France and the Republic of China. Eventually the Soviet Union ratified in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988. This long delay in support for the Genocide Convention by the world's most powerful nations caused the Convention to languish for over four decades. Only in the 1990s did the international law on the crime of genocide begin to be enforced.

UN Security Council on genocide

UN Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity". The resolution committed the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.

In 2008 the U.N. Security Council adopted resolution 1820, which noted that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide”.

Municipal law

Since the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) came into effect in January 1951 about 80 member states of the United Nations have passed legislation that incorporates the provisions of the CPPCG into their municipal law.

Criticisms of the CPPCG and other definitions of genocide

William Schabas has suggested that a permanent body as recommended by the Whitaker Report to monitor the implementation of the Genocide Convention, and require States to issue reports on their compliance with the convention (such as were incorporated into the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture), would make the convention more effective.

Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support for various reasons.

Jonassohn and Björnson postulate that the major reason why no single generally accepted genocide definition has emerged is because academics have adjusted their focus to emphasize different periods and have found it expedient to use slightly different definitions to help them interpret events. For example Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn studied the whole of human history, while Leo Kuper and R. J. Rummel in their more recent works concentrated on the 20th century, and Helen Fein, Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr have looked at post World War II events. Jonassohn and Björnson are critical of some of these studies arguing that they are too expansive and concludes that the academic discipline of genocide studies is too young to have a canon of work on which to build an academic paradigm.

The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982 argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted, and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator." While there are various definitions of the term, Adam Jones states that the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labeled genocide, and that there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.

Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr defined genocide as "the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group ...[when] the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality." Harff and Gurr also differentiate between genocides and politicides by the characteristics by which members of a group are identified by the state. In genocides, the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality. In politicides the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups. Daniel D. Polsby and Don B. Kates, Jr. state that "... we follow Harff's distinction between genocides and 'pogroms,' which she describes as 'short-lived outbursts by mobs, which, although often condoned by authorities, rarely persist.' If the violence persists for long enough, however, Harff argues, the distinction between condonation and complicity collapses."

According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 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, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes non-killings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. It is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is intended that Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.

Highlighting the potential for state and non-state actors to commit genocide in the 21st century, for example, in failed states or as non-state actors acquire weapons of mass destruction, Adrian Gallagher defined genocide as 'When a source of collective power (usually a state) intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size'. The definition upholds the centrality of intent, the multidimensional understanding of destroy, broadens the definition of group identity beyond that of the 1948 definition yet argues that a substantial part of a group has to be destroyed before it can be classified as genocide (dependent on relative group size).

A major criticism of the international community's response to the Rwandan Genocide was that it was reactive, not proactive. The international community has developed a mechanism for prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide but has not developed the will or the mechanisms for intervening in a genocide as it happens. Critics point to the Darfur conflict and suggest that if anyone is found guilty of genocide after the conflict either by prosecutions brought in the International Criminal Court or in an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal, this will confirm this perception.

International prosecution of genocide

By ad hoc tribunals

Nuon Chea, the Khmer Rouge's chief ideologist, before the Cambodian Genocide Tribunal on 5 December 2011.

All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories—namely, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia—signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent. Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo War.

It is commonly accepted that, at least since World War II, genocide has been illegal under customary international law as a peremptory norm, as well as under conventional international law. Acts of genocide are generally difficult to establish for prosecution, because a chain of accountability must be established. International criminal courts and tribunals function primarily because the states involved are incapable or unwilling to prosecute crimes of this magnitude themselves.

Nuremberg Tribunal (1945–1946)

Because the universal acceptance of international laws, defining and forbidding genocide was achieved in 1948, with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), those criminals who were prosecuted after the war in international courts, for taking part in the Holocaust were found guilty of crimes against humanity and other more specific crimes like murder. Nevertheless the Holocaust is universally recognized to have been a genocide and the term, that had been coined the year before by Raphael Lemkin, appeared in the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders, Count 3, stated that all the defendants had "conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—namely, the extermination of racial and national groups..."

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1993 to present)

A boy at a grave during the 2006 funeral of genocide victims

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992–1995 Bosnian War (an interpretation rejected by a majority of scholars).

In 2001, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judged that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide.

On 26 February 2007, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Bosnian Genocide Case upheld the ICTY's earlier finding that the Srebrenica massacre in Srebrenica and Zepa constituted genocide, but found that the Serbian government had not participated in a wider genocide on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, as the Bosnian government had claimed.

On 12 July 2007, European Court of Human Rights when dismissing the appeal by Nikola Jorgić against his conviction for genocide by a German court
 (Jorgic v. Germany) noted that the German courts wider interpretation of genocide has since been rejected by international courts considering similar cases. The ECHR also noted that in the 21st century "Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide. However, there are also a considerable number of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide, and the ICTY has found in the Momcilo Krajisnik case that the actus reu, of genocide was met in Prijedor "With regard to the charge of genocide, the Chamber found that in spite of evidence of acts perpetrated in the municipalities which constituted the actus reus of genocide".

About 30 people have been indicted for participating in genocide or complicity in genocide during the early 1990s in Bosnia. To date, after several plea bargains and some convictions that were successfully challenged on appeal two men,Vujadin Popović and Ljubiša Beara, have been found guilty of genocide, and two others, Radislav Krstić and Drago Nikolić, have been found guilty of aiding and abetting genocide. Three others have been found guilty of participating in genocides in Bosnia by German courts, one of whom Nikola Jorgić lost an appeal against his conviction in the European Court of Human Rights. A further eight men, former members of the Bosnian Serb security forces were found guilty of genocide by the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (See List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions).

Slobodan Milošević, as the former President of Serbia and of Yugoslavia, was the most senior political figure to stand trial at the ICTY. He died on 11 March 2006 during his trial where he was accused of genocide or complicity in genocide in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, so no verdict was returned. In 1995, the ICTY issued a warrant for the arrest of Bosnian Serbs Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić on several charges including genocide. On 21 July 2008, Karadžić was arrested in Belgrade, and he is currently in The Hague on trial accused of genocide among other crimes. Ratko Mladić was arrested on 26 May 2011 by Serbian special police in Lazarevo, Serbia.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1994 to present)

See also: Rwandan Genocide
Rwandan Genocide Victims

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the genocide which occurred there during April 1994, commencing on 6 April. The ICTR was created on 8 November 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to judge those people responsible for the acts of genocide and other serious violations of the international law performed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994.

So far, the ICTR has finished nineteen trials and convicted twenty seven accused persons. On 14 December 2009 two more men were accused and convicted for their crimes. Another twenty five persons are still on trial. Twenty-one are awaiting trial in detention, two more added on 14 December 2009. Ten are still at large. The first trial, of Jean-Paul Akayesu, began in 1997. In October 1998, Akayesu was sentenced to life imprisonment. Jean Kambanda, interim Prime Minister, pled guilty.

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (2003 to present)

Main articles: Killing Fields and Khmer Rouge Tribunal
Rooms of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum contain thousands of photos taken by the Khmer Rouge of their victims.
Skulls in the Choeung Ek.

The Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, Ta Mok and other leaders, organized the mass killing of ideologically suspect groups. The total number of victims is estimated at approximately 1.7 million Cambodians between 1975–1979, including deaths from slave labour.

On 6 June 2003 the Cambodian government and the United Nations reached an agreement to set up the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) which would focus exclusively on crimes committed by the most senior Khmer Rouge officials during the period of Khmer Rouge rule of 1975–1979. The judges were sworn in early July 2006.

The investigating judges were presented with the names of five possible suspects by the prosecution on 18 July 2007.

There has been disagreement between some of the international jurists and the Cambodian government over whether any other people should be tried by the Tribunal.

By the International Criminal Court

For the fact that for genocide have been brought in specially convened international tribunals. Since 2002, the International Criminal Court can exercise its jurisdiction if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute genocide, thus being a "court of last resort," leaving the primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over alleged criminals to individual states. Due to the United States concerns over the ICC, the United States prefers to continue to use specially convened international tribunals for such investigations and potential prosecutions.

Darfur, Sudan

Main article: War in Darfur
A mother with her sick baby at Abu Shouk IDP camp in North Darfur

There has been much debate over categorizing the situation in Darfur as genocide. The on-going conflict in Darfur, Sudan, which started in 2003, was declared a "genocide" by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on 9 September 2004 in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Since that time however, no other permanent member of the UN Security Council followed suit. In fact, in January 2005, an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1564 of 2004, issued a report to the Secretary-General stating that "the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide."[76]Nevertheless, the Commission cautioned that "The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."

In March 2005, the Security Council formally referred the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, taking into account the Commission report but without mentioning any specific crimes. Two permanent members of the Security Council, the United States and China, abstained from the vote on the referral resolution. As of his fourth report to the Security Council, the Prosecutor has found "reasonable grounds to believe that the individuals identified [in the UN Security Council Resolution 1593] have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes," but did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute for genocide.

In April 2007, the Judges of the ICC issued arrest warrants against the former Minister of State for the Interior, Ahmad Harun, and a Militia Janjaweed leader, Ali Kushayb, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

On 14 July 2008, prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC), filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir: three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of murder. The ICC's prosecutors claimed that al-Bashir "masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part" three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity.

On 4 March 2009, the ICC issued a warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir, President of Sudan as the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I concluded that his position as head of state does not grant him immunity against prosecution before the ICC. The warrant was for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It did not include the crime of genocide because the majority of the Chamber did not find that the prosecutors had provided enough evidence to include such a charge.

Genocide in history

Naked Soviet POWs in Mauthausen concentration camp. "... the murder of at least 3.3 million Soviet POWs is one of the least-known of modern genocides; there is still no full-length book on the subject in English." —Adam Jones
Main article: Genocides in history

The preamble to the CPPCG states that "genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world," and that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity."

In many cases where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans have fiercely disputed such an interpretation and the details of the event. This often leads to the promotion of vastly different versions of the event in question.

Revisionist attempts to challenge or affirm claims of genocide are illegal in some countries. For example, several European countries ban denying the Holocaust, while in Turkey it is illegal to refer to mass killings of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians by the Ottoman Empire toward the end of the First World War as a genocide.

The 'Age of Totalitarianism' included nearly all of the infamous examples of genocide in modern history, headed by the Jewish Holocaust, but also comprising the mass murders and purges of the Communist world, other few killings carried out by Nazi Germany and its allies, and also the Armenian genocide of 1915. All these slaughters, it is argued here, had a common origin, the collapse of the elite structure and normal modes of government of much of central, eastern and southern Europe as a result of the First World War, without which surely neither Communism nor Fascism would have existed except in the minds of unknown agitators and crackpots.

— William Rubinstein, Genocide: a history

Stages of genocide, influences leading to genocide, and efforts to prevent it

For genocide to happen, there must be certain preconditions. Foremost among them is a national culture that does not place a high value on human life. A totalitarian society, with its assumed superior ideology, is also a precondition for genocidal acts. In addition, members of the dominant society must perceive their potential victims as less than fully human: as "pagans," "savages," "uncouth barbarians," "unbelievers," "effete degenerates," "ritual outlaws," "racial inferiors," "class antagonists," "counterrevolutionaries," and so on. In themselves, these conditions are not enough for the perpetrators to commit genocide. To do that—that is, to commit genocide—the perpetrators need a strong, centralized authority and bureaucratic organization as well as pathological individuals and criminals. Also required is a campaign of vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the perpetrators, who are usually new states or new regimes attempting to impose conformity to a new ideology and its model of society.

— M. Hassan Kakar

In 1996 Gregory Stanton, the president of Genocide Watch, presented a briefing paper called "The 8 Stages of Genocide" at the United States Department of State. In it he suggested that genocide develops in eight stages that are "predictable but not inexorable".

The Stanton paper was presented at the State Department, shortly after the Rwanda genocide and much of the analysis is based on why that genocide occurred. The preventative measures suggested, given the original target audience, were those that the United States could implement directly or use their influence on other governments to have implemented.

Stage Characteristics Preventive measures
People are divided into "us and them". "The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend... divisions."
"When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..." "To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden as can hate speech".
"One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases." "Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen."
"Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..." "The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations"
"Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..." "Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups...Coups d’état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions."
"Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..." "At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. ..."
"It is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human". "At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection."
"The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..." "The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts"

In April 2012, it was reported that Stanton would soon be officially adding two new stages, Discrimination and Persecution, to his original theory, which would make for a 10-stage theory of genocide.

In a paper for the Social Science Research Council Dirk Moses criticizes the Stanton approach concluding:

In view of this rather poor record of ending genocide, the question needs to be asked why the "genocide studies" paradigm cannot predict and prevent genocides with any accuracy and reliability. The paradigm of "genocide studies," as currently constituted in North America in particular, has both strengths and limitations. While the moral fervor and public activism is admirable and salutary, the paradigm appears blind to its own implication in imperial projects that are themselves as much part of the problem as they are part of the solution. The US government called Darfur a genocide to appease domestic lobbies, and because the statement cost it nothing. Darfur will end when it suits the great powers that have a stake in the region.

— Dirk Moses

Other authors have focused on the structural conditions leading up to genocide and the psychological and social processes that create an evolution toward genocide. Helen Fein showed that pre-existing anti-Semitism and systems that maintained anti-Semitic policies was related to the number of Jews killed in different European countries during the Holocaust. Ervin Staub showed that economic deterioration and political confusion and disorganization were starting points of increasing discrimination and violence in many instances of genocides and mass killing. They lead to scapegoating a group and ideologies that identified that group as an enemy. A history of devaluation of the group that becomes the victim, past violence against the group that becomes the perpetrator leading to psychological wounds, authoritarian cultures and political systems, and the passivity of internal and external witnesses (bystanders) all contribute to the probability that the violence develops into genocide. Intense conflict between groups that is unresolved, becomes intractable and violent can also lead to genocide. The conditions that lead to genocide provide guidance to early prevention, such as humanizing a devalued group, creating ideologies that embrace all groups, and activating bystander responses. There is substantial research to indicate how this can be done, but information is only slowly transformed into action.

See also



  1. Jump up^ See generally Funk, T. Marcus (2010). Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. [1]. ISBN 0-19-973747-9.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b What is Genocide? McGill Faculty of Law (McGill University)
  3. Jump up^ Adrian Gallagher, Genocide and Its Threat to Contemporary International Order (Palgrave, 2013), ch. 2: "Words Matter: Genocide and the Definitional Debate"
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Archived 2 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  5. Jump up^ genocide in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.—"1944 R. Lemkin Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79 By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group."
  6. Jump up^ Video interview with Raphael Lemkin CBS news. "[2]"
  7. Jump up^ New York Times "[3]"
  8. Jump up^ Verdirame, Guglielmo "The Genocide Definition in the Jurisprudence of the Ad Hoc Tribunals", International & Comparative Law Quarterly (2000), 49 : 578–598 Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/S002058930006437X.Abstract
  9. Jump up^ Naomi Klein. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Macmillan, 2007 ISBN 0-8050-7983-1, ISBN 978-0-8050-7983-8. p. 101, see footnote
  10. Jump up^ Staub, Ervin. The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-521-42214-0.
  11. Jump up^ Robert Gellately & Ben Kiernan (2003). The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. [ ISBN 0-521-52750-3.
  12. Jump up^ Adam Jones. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge; 2 edition (1 August 2010). ISBN 0-415-48619-X p. 137
  13. Jump up^ William Schabas, Genocide in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 198.
  14. Jump up^ "UN 2005 World Summit Outcome Document". UN Website. 15 September 2005.
  15. Jump up^ Russell J. Adams, ‘’A Letter to Dear Children, On our Overpopulation-Violence Connection’’ (CreateSpace, 2013) chapter 2.
  16. Jump up^ Russell J. Adams, ‘’A Letter to Dear Children, On our Overpopulation-Violence Connection’’ (CreateSpace, 2013), p. 92.
  17. Jump up^ Russell J. Adams, ‘’A Letter to Dear Children, On our Overpopulation-Violence Connection’’ (CreateSpace, 2013), p. 91.
  18. Jump up^ Rubinstein, W. D. (2004). Genocide: a history. Pearson Education. p. 308. ISBN 0-582-50601-8.
  19. Jump up^ Robert Gellately & Ben Kiernan (2003). The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 267. ISBN 0-521-52750-3.
  20. Jump up^ Staub, Ervin (31 July 1992). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-521-42214-0.
  21. Jump up^ From a statement made by Mr. Morozov, representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, on 19 April 1948 during the debate in the Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide (E/AC.25/SR.12).
  22. Jump up^ See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature on 23 May 1969, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, No. I-18232.
  23. Jump up^ Mandate, structure and methods of work: Genocide I of the UN Commission of Experts to examine violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, created by Security Council resolution 780 (1992) of 6 October 1992.
  24. Jump up^ European Court of Human Rights Judgement in Jorgic v. Germany (Application no. 74613/01) paragraphs 18, 36,74
  25. Jump up^ European Court of Human Rights Judgement in Jorgic v. Germany (Application no. 74613/01) paragraphs 43–46
  26. Jump up^ Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)
  27. ^ Jump up to:a b Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)
  28. Jump up^ Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004) See Paragraph 6: "Article 4 of the Tribunal's Statute, like the Genocide Convention, covers certain acts done with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
  29. Jump up^ Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. Doc. S/25704 at 36, annex (1993) and S/25704/Add.1 (1993), adopted by Security Council on 25 May 1993, Resolution 827 (1993).
  30. Jump up^ Resolution Resolution 1674 (2006)
  31. Jump up^ Security Council passes landmark resolution – world has responsibility to protect people from genocide OxfamPress Release – 28 April 2006
  32. Jump up^
  33. Jump up^ The Crime of Genocide in Domestic Laws and Penal Codes website of prevent genocide international.
  34. Jump up^ William Schabas War crimes and human rights: essays on the death penalty, justice and accountability, Cameron May 2008 ISBN 1-905017-63-4, ISBN 978-1-905017-63-8. p. 791
  35. ^ Jump up to:a b Kurt Jonassohn & Karin Solveig Björnson, Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations in Comparative Perspective: In Comparative Perspective, Transaction Publishers, 1998, ISBN 0-7658-0417-4, ISBN 978-0-7658-0417-4.pp. 133–135
  36. Jump up^ M. Hassan Kakar Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982 University of Californiapress 1995 The Regents of the University of California.
  37. Jump up^ M. Hassan Kakar 4. The Story of Genocide in Afghanistan: 13. Genocide Throughout the Country
  38. Jump up^ Frank Chalk, Kurt Jonassohn The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies, Yale University Press, 1990, ISBN 0-300-04446-1
  39. Jump up^ Jones, Adam. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Publishers, 2006. ISBN 0-415-35385-8. Chapter 1: The Origins of Genocide pp.20–21
  40. Jump up^ What is Genocide? McGill Faculty of Law (McGill University) source cites Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr Toward empirical theory of genocides and politicides, International Studies Quarterly, 37:3, 1988
  41. Jump up^ Origins and Evolution of the Concept in the Science Encyclopedia by Net Industries. states "Politicide, as [Barbara] Harff and [Ted R.] Gurr define it, refers to the killing of groups of people who are targeted not because of shared ethnic or communal traits, but because of 'their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups' (p. 360)". But does not give the book title to go with the page number.
  42. Jump up^ Staff. There are NO Statutes of Limitations on the Crimes of Genocide! On the website of the American Patriot Friends Network. Cites Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr "Toward empirical theory of genocides and politicides," International Studies Quarterly 37, 3 [1988].
  43. Jump up^ Polsby, Daniel D.; Kates, Don B., Jr. (3 November 1997). "OF HOLOCAUSTS AND GUN CONTROL". Washington University Law Quarterly 75 (Fall): 1237. (cites Harff 1992, see other note)
  44. Jump up^ Harff, Barbara (1992). "Recognizing Genocides and Politicides". In Fein, Helen. Genocide Watch (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press) 27: 37, 38.
  45. Jump up^ Domocide versus genocide; which is what?
  46. Jump up^ Adrian Gallagher, Genocide and Its Threat to Contemporary International Order (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) p. 37.
  47. Jump up^ United Nations Treaty Collection (As of 9 October 2001): Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on the web site of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
  48. Jump up^ (See for example the submission by Agent of the United States, Mr. David Andrews to the ICJ Public Sitting, 11 May 1999)
  49. Jump up^ Oxford English Dictionary: 1944 R. Lemkin Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79 "By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group."
  50. Jump up^ Oxford English Dictionary "Genocide" citing Sunday Times 21 October 1945
  51. Jump up^ Staff. Bosnian genocide suspect extradited, BBC, 2 April 2002
  52. Jump up^ European Court of Human Rights. Jorgic v. Germany Judgment, 12 July 2007. § 47
  53. Jump up^ The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) that genocide had been committed. (see paragraph 560 for name of group in English on whom the genocide was committed). It was upheld in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)
  54. Jump up^ "Courte: Serbia failed to prevent genocide, UN court rules". Associated Press. 26 February 2007.
  55. Jump up^ ECHR Jorgic v. Germany. § 42 citing Prosecutor v. Krstic, IT-98-33-T, judgment of 2 August 2001, §§ 580
  56. Jump up^ ECHR Jorgic v. Germany Judgment, 12 July 2007. § 44 citing Prosecutor v. Kupreskic and Others (IT-95-16-T, judgment of 14 January 2000), § 751. In 14 January 2000, the ICTY ruled in the Prosecutor v. Kupreskic and Others case that the killing of 116 Muslims in order to expel the Muslim population from a village amounted to persecution, not genocide.
  57. Jump up^ ICJ press release 2007/8 26 February 2007
  58. Jump up^
  59. Jump up^ Staff (5 November 2009). "Q&A: Karadzic on trial". BBC News. Retrieved 28 January 2010.
  60. Jump up^ Staff (26 May 2011). "Q&A: Ratko Mladic arrested: Bosnia war crimes suspect held". BBC News. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
  61. Jump up^ These figures need revising they are from the ICTR page which says see
  62. Jump up^ Cambodian Genocide Program, Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies
  63. Jump up^ "A/RES/57/228B". 2003-05-022. Retrieved 11 December 2010.
  64. ^ Jump up to:a b Doyle, Kevin. "Putting the Khmer Rouge on Trial", Time, 26 July 2007
  65. Jump up^ MacKinnon, Ian "Crisis talks to save Khmer Rouge trial", The Guardian, 7 March 2007
  66. Jump up^ The Khmer Rouge Trial Task Force, Royal Cambodian Government
  67. ^ Jump up to:a b Buncombe, Andrew. "Judge quits Cambodia genocide tribunal". The Independent.
  68. Jump up^ Ker Munthit (12 August 2008). "Cambodian tribunal indicts Khmer Rouge jailer". USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved April 2012.
  69. Jump up^ "Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch Sentenced to Life Imprisonment by the Supreme Court Chamber". Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. 3 February 2012. Retrieved April 2012.
  70. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Case 002". Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Retrieved April 2012.
  71. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "002/19-09-2007: Closing Order" (PDF). Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. 15 September 2010. Retrieved April 2012.
  72. Jump up^ "002/19-09-2007: Decision on immediate appeal against Trial Chamber's order to release the accused Ieng Thirith"(PDF). Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. 13 December 2011. Retrieved April 2012.
  73. Jump up^ Statement by Carolyn Willson, Minister Counselor for International Legal Affairs, on the Report of the ICC, in the UN General Assembly PDF (123 KB) 23 November 2005
  74. Jump up^ Jafari, Jamal and Paul Williams (2005) "Word Games: The UN and Genocide in Darfur" JURIST
  75. Jump up^ POWELL DECLARES KILLING IN DARFUR 'GENOCIDE', The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 9 September 2004
  76. ^ Jump up to:a b Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General PDF (1.14 MB), 25 January 2005, at 4
  77. Jump up^ Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005) PDF (24.8 KB)
  79. Jump up^ Fourth Report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to the Security Council pursuant to UNSC 1593 (2005) PDF (597 KB), Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, 14 December 2006.
  80. Jump up^ Statement by Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to the United Nations Security Council pursuant to UNSCR 1593 (2005), International Criminal Court, 5 June 2008
  81. Jump up^ ICC issues a warrant of arrest for Omar Al Bashir, President of Sudan (ICC-CPI-20090304-PR394), ICC press release, 4 March 2009
  82. Jump up^ Adam Jones (2010), Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (2nd ed.), p.271. – "'" Next to the Jews in Europe," wroteAlexander Werth', "the biggest single German crime was undoubtedly not the extermination by hunger, exposure and in other ways of . . . Russian war prisoners." Yet the murder of at least 3.3 million Soviet POWs is one of the least-known of modern genocides; there is still no full-length book on the subject in English. It also stands as one of the most intensive genocides of all time: "a holocaust that devoured millions," as Catherine Merridale acknowledges. The large majority of POWs, some 2.8 million, were killed in just eight months of 1941–42, a rate of slaughter matched (to my knowledge) only by the 1994 Rwanda genocide."
  83. Jump up^ Pair guilty of 'insulting Turkey', BBC News, October 11, 2007.
  84. Jump up^ Rubinstein, W. D. (2004). Genocide: a history. Pearson Education. p.7. ISBN 0-582-50601-8
  85. ^ Jump up to:a b M. Hassan Kakar Chapter 4. The Story of Genocide in Afghanistan Footnote 9. Citing Horowitz, quoted in Chalk and Jonassohn, Genocide, 14.
  86. Jump up^ M. Hassan Kakar Chapter 4. The Story of Genocide in Afghanistan Footnote 10. Citing For details, see Carlton, War and Ideology.
  87. Jump up^ M. Hassan Kakar, Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982, University of CaliforniaPress, 1995.
  88. ^ Jump up to:a b Gregory Stanton. The 8 Stages of Genocide, Genocide Watch, 1996
  89. Jump up^ The FBI has found somewhat similar stages for hate groups.
  90. Jump up^
  91. Jump up^ Dirk Moses Why the Discipline of "Genocide Studies" Has Trouble Explaining How Genocides End?, Social Science Research Council, 22 December 2006
  92. Jump up^ Fein, H. (1979). Accounting for genocide: Victims and survivors of the Holocaust. New York: Fre Press[page needed]
  93. Jump up^ Staub, E (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.[page needed]
  94. Jump up^ Staub, E. (2011) Overcoming evil: Genocide, violent conflict and terrorism New York: Oxford University Press.[page needed]


Further reading





Research Programs

External links

Look up genocide in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Genocide.






  updated 10-20-06

compiled by Dee Finney

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. 
                                                                                     Aldous Huxley

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." 
                                                      (Prince Philip of Great Britain, leader of World Wildlife Fund)

"Eugenics is the study of the agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities 
of future generations either physically or mentally."
                                                                                               Sir Francis Galton, 1904


6.5 Billion People

Today at 7:16 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, the population of Earth is projected to reach 6.5 billion people.
According to a March 2004 U.S. Census Bureau report, the world population hit 6 billion in June 1999. 
"This figure is over 3.5 times the size of the Earth's population at the beginning of the 20th century and 
roughly double its size in 1960," the report noted. Perhaps more amazing was the short time required to 
increase the planet's population from 5 to 6 billion -- just 12 years. Read more at


DECEMBER 21, 2013

UNITED STATES 3,317,276,950

WORLD  7, 312,077,940



U.S. Population to Hit 300 Million in 2006

Latinos Driving Growth More Than Any Other Ethnic Group

WASHINGTON (June 25, 2006) - The U.S. population is on target to hit 300 million 
this fall and it's a good bet the milestone baby -- or immigrant -- will be Hispanic.

America’s population hits 300 million 

Welcome to America's population milestone:

According to the U.S. census, the 300,000,000th (that's 300 million) American was born at 7:46 a.m. Tuesday. A combination of
babies being born, people dying and someone legally immigrating to the United States every few seconds allowed the nation to hit
an enviable milestone six years after the turn of the century.

When all it said and done, the 300,000,000 figure will be just another number. To demographers and statisticians, it will be an ongoing topic of conversation. And to the poor soul who somehow was the one that networks and cable stations zeroed in on for the moment of their arrival, their life will never be the same.

It is ironic that a few years ago, when India's population crossed one billion, I wrote, “India's billion no cause for celebration,” and now I have to say the same thing about America. There is more in common than just a rapid growth in population. The rapid growth in population is actually the result of similarities of the policies. Both the countries are the most enthusiastic supporters of globalization and view population as a resource to be exploited for generating bigger profits.

Comparing America with the other developing countries, and comparing India with China, will prove that America and India are following different trends than the other countries. For example, in almost all the developed countries, the population has either leveled off or is actually decreasing. Western Europe and Japan are typical examples of this. Even in Canada, the white population is decreasing; Canada needs about 1% extra of its population (about 300,000) people every year to maintain its work force.

China has adopted a fundamentally different approach to its population. It is now promoting a one-child family more vigorously in the rural areas also. China has decided to pay extra financial rewards to the couples that have one male child or have two female children once these couples reach age 60. This measure is supposed to help them in their retirement so that one child does not have to bear the burden of caring for retiring parents. China is the only country that is seriously considering balancing economic growth with social stability. In the recent meeting of the Communist Party, greater emphasis was laid on social harmony than on economic growth.

In 1915, the American population was 100 million, and in 1967, it became 200 million. It took only 39 years to gain another 100 million population. Out of these 200 million, 55 million are immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren. We are gaining one person every eleven seconds. It is estimated that by 2040, the population will reach 400 million. The composition of the population is rapidly changing also. In 1966, out of 200 million, about 167 million were white and about 33 million were non-white. In 2006, out of 300 million, about 200 million are white and about 100 million are non-white. By about 2050, more than half of the population will be non-white. In 1966, 0.75% population was Asian; in 2006, about 4.75% of the population is Asian. In 1996, about 11% population was black; in 2006 it is close to 13%. In 1966, 4% of the population was Hispanic. In 2006, 14% of the population is Hispanic. In 2050, 25% of the population will be Hispanic. It is also expected that, by that time, there will be more Hispanic births than immigrants.

It is not just the racial population, which is changing, but there is also growing economic polarization of the population. On the one hand, the number of billionaires is increasing; on the other hand, the number of people living below the poverty line continues to climb. Even those people who are not below the poverty line are unable to afford a decent quality of life. For example, 46 million Americans cannot afford medical insurance, about double that number are underinsured. This means that almost half of the population cannot afford adequate health insurance. If we take into consideration the average price of house and rent, then it will become clear that a large proportion of the population, particularly in the big cities, will be unable to afford a decent house to buy or a reasonable place to rent.

Environmental groups are also concerned about overtaxing the environment. Again, one could learn from the extreme example of the Indian subcontinent where it is becoming increasingly difficult even to provide the most basic necessities for the population, such as drinking water or toilet facilities. One particular problem American population growth is causing can be called the "suburban sprawl". Sprawl, meaning spread out, is using more and more land for building houses. This “spread out” means more vehicles and more miles to travel. This will result in more pollution, clearing of forests, ecosystem disruption, and worsening the problem of global warming.

by:Dr. Sawraj Singh. Dr Singh is Chairman of Washington State Network For Human Rights, and Chairman of Central Washington Coalition For Social Justice.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Media outlets from Atlanta to San Francisco on Wednesday boasted competing claims to be the birthplace of America's 300 millionth person but admitted no one will ever know for sure.

The Census Bureau estimated on Tuesday the U.S. population hit the 300-million mark at 7:46 a.m. EDT.

This sparked a flurry of speculation about the identity of the milestone person, and newspapers from Kalamazoo, Michigan to Tucson, Arizona and Saratoga, New York, nominated babies born in their areas as the one.

The San Francisco Chronicle speculated it might have been the son born to Jenny Tang at 4:42 a.m. PDT. Or perhaps it was seven-pound, 13-ounce (3.54 kg) Anthony Joshua Anton delivered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at 7:43 a.m. EDT, TV station KDKA said.

One demographer has said the 300 millionth person would likely be a Latino boy given current U.S. population trends.

Others said it could even be an immigrant. The Census Bureau said it would not attempt to identify the 300 millionth person. When the population topped 200 million in 1967, Life magazine ultimately named Robert Woo, a Chinese-American born in the Atlanta area, as the person who passed the mark.

Diaper maker Pampers offered a lifetime supply of disposable diapers to the 300 millionth baby. A spokeswoman on Wednesday said the company had not yet decided whom to give the prize. "It's a good question how we'll decide. ... We understand there are various names vying for the title."


11-7-01 - VISION - As I lay my head down on the pillow to go to sleep, the whole inside of my head felt like it exploded and I saw a vision of hundreds of people jammed together. The explosion was so violent, I jumped right up off the pillow. 

I then saw a line of thick black printing I couldn't read, and then the date, Jan. 2, 2997. I figured I wasn't going to worry about that, then I thought, "What if it's a typo and it means 2007?"

In the morning I thought about it again and figured it just meant 'population explosion.'


8-2-02 - DREAM - I was living/working in an apartment building.  All my own children were there, sitting around in a dimly lit livingroom, except my son Michael who was in the kitchen working. The kitchen was immaculately clean except that there was a massive water flood in the middle of the floor. Michael said that my daughter had spilled the water. I went to the livingroom and asked her politely and quietly if she would go to the kitchen and mop up the water she had spilled. She sat there like she was deaf and didn't move.

She needed to be punished, but she was too old to just scream and yell at, so I did what any civilized mother will do - TURN OFF THE TV. I noted on the clock that it was 10:30 a.m.

As I walked through the apartment, I thought it would be nice to listen to music on the radio while I worked, but I was unable to tune the radio so it would be heard by everyone.

I went into the bedroom and saw that there was massive dust under the bed. I grabbed a dust mop to remove the dust, but the mop was too small for the job, so I got a big wide squeegee to wipe the dust off the floor. That worked really well.

I went towards the kitchen again, which was already clean, but right next to it, on the wall, I saw that the toilet was missing, an odor control electrical unit was missing too. That meant I needed to call in real maintenance men.

I looked around the amount of work to do was massive and overwhelming. I felt like I was the only one making an attempt to do any work to straight out the problem.

There was so much stuff sitting around on the counters and on the floor, one could barely move around. I twas all usable and good stuff, but there was too much of everything.

Then I noticed that all the plants were turning yellow and dying. So my first priority was water them. So I headed for the sink to water the plants and my attention was called to some little girls who were playing dress-up with adult sized jewelry. They had large clip-on earrings like clamps. They put them on their ears, but when they tried to take them off, they just pulled on them without opening the clamp - everyone who has ever tried that knows how much that hurts., so I had to take the jewelry away from them.

On a table nearby were massive amounts of pearls and beads which all needed to be sorted. All I could think of was that it would be best to just sweep them into a large box and clean off the table in one fell swoop and sort them out later.

I was trying to fix something while walking around and underneath the metal plate, all the threads were too short to work with and all I could think of to do was to pull them all out and start over. While I was doing this, I went outside and looked at the garden, everything looked like it was growing well, but nobody had thinned the plants so there was room to grow, there was just too much of everything. I couldn't even walk between the rows because there was just too much there.

Back inside the apartment, I saw the same everywhere - there was too much of everything everywhere.  It was so overwhelming that the only thing one can do is just take your and and sweep it into a box and start over.

Just at that moment, the odor to the bosses office opened. Inside it was hushed and quiet, but I knew there was an executive meeting going on. The men inside who all rant elevator companies were having a meeting, planning on how to take everyone upstairs at the same time. These men were all wearing black suits and all I could think of was that it meant 'DEATH!'

U.S. Population to Hit 300 Million in 2006
Latinos Driving Growth More Than Any Other Ethnic Group

WASHINGTON (June 25) - The U.S. population is on target to hit 300 million this fall and it's a good bet the milestone baby -- or immigrant -- will be Hispanic.

No one will know for sure because the date and time will be just an estimate.

But Latinos -- immigrants and those born in this country -- are driving the population growth, accounting for almost half the increase last year, more than any other ethnic or racial group.

White non-Hispanics, who make up about two-thirds of the population, accounted for less than one-fifth of the increase.

When the population reached 200 million in 1967, there was no accurate tally of U.S. Hispanics. The first effort to count Hispanics came in the 1970 census, and the results were dubious.

The Census Bureau counted about 9.6 million Latinos, a little less than 5 percent of the population, but the bureau acknowledged that figure was inflated.

Getty Image



U.S. population on Sunday morning according to the Census Bureau's population clock

Rate at which a new baby is born - in seconds

Rate at which someone dies - in seconds

Rate at which the U.S. gains an immigrant - in seconds

Rate at which the U.S. gains another person - in seconds

Number of years ago, the U.S. reached 200,000,000 - in 1967

Number of years ago, the U.S. reached 100,000,000 - in 1915

Years the population is predicted to reach 400,000,000 - in 2030

In 1967, there were fewer than 10 million people in the U.S. who were born in other countries; that was not even one in 20.

Today, there are 36 million immigrants, about one in eight.

"We were much more of an insular society back then," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

As of early Sunday, there were 299,058,932 people in the United States, according to the Census Bureau's population clock. The estimate is based on annual numbers for births, deaths and immigration, averaged throughout the year.

The 300 millionth person in the U.S. will likely be born -- or cross the border -- in October, though bureau officials are wary of committing to a particular month because of the subjective nature of the clock.

06-25-06 11:39 EDT

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

Population Myths

One needn't worry about population growth in the United States, because it's still nowhere near as densely populated as - for example - the Netherlands.

Predictions of a "population explosion" were wrong because they were based on past trends that are no longer valid.

Modern medicine has eliminated one big threat connected with overpopulation, the spread of infectious diseases.

There is no need to be concerned about world hunger; feeding the world's population is a problem of distribution, not supply.

Advances in agriculture will soon eliminate the remaining pockets of hunger.


The blow-up of humankind, as we approach T1 means that in 2024 the population would double in less than a year, which is equally nonsensical. What has not been taken into account is the duration of the human life, an interval of time that characterizes our reproductive capacity and lifespan. It is this factor that has to be taken into account to set the limits of scaling.


Genocide committed in the name of Allah: 3,000,000 Bangladeshi Hindus Killed during the Pakistan-Bangladesh war in 1971. From 1894 to 1896 Abdul Hamid, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, killed 150,000 Armenian Christians. In India, Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur along with his disciples was burned to death by the Moghul ruler Aurangzeb in 1675. Another Sikh, Bhai Mati Das was sawn into right and left halves while he was still alive. In July 1974, 4,000 Christians living in Cyprus were killed by Fahri Koroturk, president of Turkey and his Islamic army. From 1843 to 1846 10,000 Assyrian Christians including women and children were massacred by the Muslims. From 1915 to 1918 750,000 Assyrians were killed in the name of Islamic Jihad. In 1933 thousands of Assyrian villagers were murdered by the Iraqi soldiers in Northern Iraq. Since 1990 more than 10,000 Kashmiri Hindus have been brutally murdered by Islamic fundamentalists. Over 280,000 Ugandans killed during the reign of Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979. Over 30,000 Mauritanians have been killed by the Islamic dictators since 1960. In 1980, 20,000 Syrians were murdered under the rule of Hafez Al-Assad, President of Syria. Since 1992 120,000 Algerians have been murdered by the Islamic fundamentalist army.


World population growth 'falling'


  Africa's population is set to fall

The growth rate of the world population has slowed down, according to the US Census Bureau. Its report says there were 74 million more people in 2002 - well below the 87 million added in 1989-90. The rate of growth peaked 40 years ago, when it stood at about 2.2% a year. The bureau partly attributes the drop to women having fewer children. It also projects a population decline in Africa because of the lower life expectancy due to HIV-Aids.

In 1990 women around the world gave birth to 3.3 children on average, the report says.

By 2002, the average had dropped to 2.6 children - slightly above the level needed to assure replacement of the population. The bureau's projections show the level of fertility for the world as a whole descending below replacement level by 2050. It forecasts there will be nearly 9.1bn people by 2050, just under a 50% increase from the 6.2bn in 2002.

Dying young

The report suggests that the proportion of people over the age of 65 will continue to increase - from 7% to 17% by 2050.
The projections also indicate that by 2010, some African countries will experience falls in life expectancy at birth to about 30 years - a level not seen since the early 20th Century.

Much of this trend is likely to result from Aids, the report says. It adds the trend could reverse if Aids education programs are expanded in developing nations. It points to positive signs in Thailand, Senegal and Uganda, where the epidemic appears to have been stemmed.


Eighteenth-century America was different from the Old World in other ways as well. Owing to earlier marriages, larger families, a lower mortality rate, a better diet, and continued immigration, the North American colonies grew faster than any other part of the world. Whereas in 1630 there were only 5,000 colonists in all of the English mainland settlements combined, a century later there were 629,000. On the eve of the American Revolution, there were close to 2.2 million. The colonies were doubling their population every twenty-five years. In 1750, this population explosion caused the energetic printer and politician Benjamin Franklin to exult in the future of America, looking forward to the day when there would be more Englishmen living in the New World than in the Old. Independence had not yet occurred to him. Instead, the loyal Franklin saw the flourishing colonies bringing greater glory for the British Empire, with the center of power moving inexorably from east to west.

With a relatively empty continent blessed with abundant natural resources, population growth fostered even greater economic growth. From 1700 to the eve of the Revolution, exports to Britain increased seven times. Since the economy grew faster than the population, per-capita wealth steadily increased, providing the foundation for American industrial development.



09/30/02 6,253,435,331

Monthly World population figures:

07/01/02 6,234,250,387 
08/01/02 6,240,730,593 
09/01/02 6,247,210,800 
10/01/02 6,253,481,968 
11/01/02 6,259,962,175 
12/01/02 6,266,233,343 
01/01/03 6,272,713,550 
02/01/03 6,279,193,757 
03/01/03 6,285,046,847 
04/01/03 6,291,527,054 
05/01/03 6,297,798,222 
06/01/03 6,304,278,429 
07/01/03 6,310,549,597

At the beginning of this century, there were a mere 1.7 billion inhabitants around our earth. A century later, we have passed 6 billion as the number of humanoids and the numbers are metastasising at a breakneck pace of five births per-second. Meanwhile revolutionary medical technology is preparing to extend the average life span to well over 90 years of age. In the United States alone, by 2050 the U.S. Census Bureau estimates a population of over 80 million senior citizens. Combine the elderly populations of other industrialized and developing countries, and the prospect of billions of 90-somethings may become a reality. This string of developments has left the more anxious foot soldiers of the environmental lobby fearing that this pernicious equation of rampant procreation, advanced aging, and mass consumption will set off a disastrous domino effect that will plunder the Earth’s rapidly diminishing storehouse of natural resources, and quickly culminate in the destruction of the planet. Obviously, drastic actions are needed and this growing faction of nature lovers are stepping forward to stem this possible Earth crisis with a highly original (but eerily realistic) panacea to this looming threat: death.

Unfortunately, a popular (and beloved) author in his country of origin, the iconoclastic Linkola asserts that a catastrophic Third World War would be a “happy occasion for the planet.” The dedicated environmentalist altruistically told the Wall Street Journal in 1994 that “...If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions would die.” As part of his far-reaching effort to annihilate the ozone eating hordes of Homo Sapiens, Linkola is calling for measures demanding that financial assistance to third world countries be ceased, borders blocked, and government-mandated mandatory abortions be performed on pregnant mothers with two or more children. Although his polemical views would be subject to censure in the highly sensitive (and at times myopic) arena of American politics, he is revered in his bucolic country of origin.

Remember that China already has a law that couples are only allowed one child in a marriage. Other children, if allowed to live are hidden.

Over the last 30 years, there have been many varied programs to lower birth rates. Many regions of the world have dramatically reduced birth rates. Some have already achieved family sizes small enough, if maintained, to result eventually in a halt to population growth. These successes have led to a slowing of the world's rate of population increase. The shift from high to low death and birth rates has been called the "demographic transition."

The rate at which the demographic transition progresses worldwide will determine the ultimate level of the human population. The lag between downward shifts of death and birth rates may be many decades or even several generations, and during these periods population growth will continue inexorably. We face the prospect of a further doubling of the population within the next half century. Most of this growth will take place in developing countries.

Consider three hypothetical scenarios* for the levels of human population in the century ahead:

Fertility declines within sixty years from the current rate of 3.3 to a global replacement average of 2.1 children per woman. The current population momentum would lead to at least 11 billion people before leveling off at the end of the 21st century.

Fertility reduces to an average of 1.7 children per woman early in the next century. Human population growth would peak at 7.8 billion persons in the middle of the 21st century and decline slowly thereafter.

Fertility declines to no lower than 2.5 children per woman. Global population would grow to 19 billion by the year 2100, and to 28 billion by 2150.

Population control is absolutely necessary to the quality of life the 'masses'.  But, how that is done is not always a kind thing that governments do and of course, you can be sure that the people who are in control will want the majority of people to survive will be their own kind. That is one thing we must be aware of. 


Dr. Death Gets FBI Visit
Media, colleagues continue to portray him as the innocent victim

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison | April 6 2006

The Austin-American Statesman today reports that Dr Eric Pianka, who has been at the center of a media firestorm for wishing death upon 90% of humanity via an airborne ebola bio-attack, today received a visit from the FBI after he was reported as a potential terrorist.

As we and others like ZD Net previously reported, Dr. Death types across academia and their followers have access to the very weapons of mass destruction that would enable them to enact their 'final solution'. Both UT Arlington and UT Austin have contracts with Sandia National Laboratories which includes research related to "chemical and biological weapons." Openly stating a desire to see 90% of humanity wiped out by means of releasing a bio-weapon and also having access to biological weapons is in our eyes an alarming precedent.

In addition, in 2003 biological weapons watchdogs asked the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to suspend biodefense funding for the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston due to the Medical Branch's secrecy about its research on biological weapons agents and its refusal to comply with federal biosafety guidelines.

It comes as no surprise that, according to the Statesman, hanging on the wall of Pianka's office is a picture of him proudly dressed as Charles Darwin. Dr. Death is a social Darwinist Malthusian who believes in the virtues of eugenics, a movement characterized by forced sterilization in the US, fueled by Carnegie and Rockefeller funding, and responsible for the birth of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. It was Charles Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, who first brought eugenics to the US at the turn of the last century. According to the San Francisco Chronicle,

"The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing....Elitists, utopians and so-called progressives fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: Populate the Earth with vastly more of their own socioeconomic and biological kind -- and less or none of everyone else. "

This is what Pianka embraced when he told the audience at Lamar University,

"Smarter people have fewer kids."

He said those who don't have a conscience about the Earth will inherit the Earth, "...because those who care make fewer babies and those that didn't care made more babies." He said we will evolve as uncaring people, and "I think IQs are falling for the same reason, too."

We have highlighted cases where under the sterilization program in the US, which ran until 1979, people like Ruth Morris were forcibly sterilized, used as guinea pigs in medical experiments, and denied the opportunity ever to have children because the state deemed their IQ not to be high enough. Virginia Governor Mark Warner had to publicly apologize for the program in 2002.

The practice continues to this day in China, a model which Pianka advocated when he said that the one child policy, enforced by a brutal police state, was a good thing.

Pianka and his ilk have embraced a new form of eugenics that forms a crossroads with ecology. Whereas the pioneers of eugenics like Margaret Sanger and Hitler discussed racial hygiene, Pianka professes the need for global hygiene and the disease is human beings.

One of Pianka's followers states on her own blog, "He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right."

"It's the harsh reality that many people alive right now should be dead. And even harsher to think that the world would be better off with them dead too," writes 'Serenity'.

After lamenting how her own grandparents should be dead, she then goes on to echo Pianka's eugenics stance in stating, "An insightful observation was made during the talk that education should be the key to learning how to take care of the Earth, but the problem is that the educated have fewer children and the uneducated have many children. So eventually, the uneducated will take over the Earth. It may have already happened."

Again, the acceptance of this kind of rhetoric is exactly why Hitler was able to pursue his nightmare vision of the super race, where only the strong and enlightened ones chosen by the the state would have the right to live.

These sick bastards have the nerve to couch their feverish pro-death rants in the context that they're lovingly caring for the planet and that they're actually pro-life! The disconnect and duality of this insanity is difficult to behold.

In addition, another Biology student and supporter of Pianka, Rebecca Calisi (pictured below), mirrored this Nazi ideology when sheexpressed her loathsome desire that the world would be a better place with every single human being dead!

"There is NO DENYING the natural world would be a better place without people - ALL people! Not a selective bunch. Get it straight," wrote Calisi.

And the Associated Press and local NBC news make out as if we're the radicals here for pointing out that killing off the entire human race with biological weapons is wrong!

if Pianka started barbecuing babies in the UT cafeteria and we opposed it, would Pianka be portrayed as the victim and us as the extremists?

The Statesman article quotes one of Pianka's colleagues David Hillis, who defends him by saying that Pianka, "has such a passion for life and diversity. How anyone could paint him as pro-death is unbelievable."

The man who said AIDS didn't kill people fast enough for his liking is not pro-death? The man who supports China's brutally enforced one child policy is not pro-death? The man who said he was "looking forward to the collapse" after a disease controls "the scourge of humanity" is not pro-death? The man who proudly displays an ebola plush toy on his front desk is not pro-death? Did we just enter the twilight zone here?

"Pianka said [he] only meant to warn about the potential for epidemics in the face of uncontrolled population growth," states the article. If it was meant as a warning then why did Pianka order the cameras to be shut off before his speech and why did he say that the general public was not yet ready for what he had to say? If it was meant as a sober warning then why did 95% of his students and peers jump to their feet and raucously applause him at the end of it?

Dr. Death and his drooling disciples should not be allowed to incite genocide and promote Nazi models of eugenics without encountering resistance. We do not in any way advocate death threats or intimidation towards Mr. Pianka or any of his students. However, the repugnant response of the establishment media has been to soft-peddle the story and paint Pianka as the victim. This is exactly why we will continue to challenge and counter monsters whose ideals if acted upon would result in the indiscriminate slaughter of our entire families.


Due to the overwhelming popularity of our $39.95 yearly special, we are bringing it back for Spring! This is your chance to receive over 5 months of access completely free compared to the standard price. Click here to subscribe!

Abortion, Breast Cancer and Population Control

Many physicians are concerned about dramatic increases in breast carcinoma in women. Despite the fact that 18 scientific studies in domestic and foreign medical journals have demonstrated the direct relationship between first-trimester abortions and breast cancer, all efforts to disseminate that information here in the United States have been consistently blocked by those favoring abortion and population control.

In the fall of 1996 a new scientific paper consisting of a meta-analysis of 23 scientific studies on the relationship between first trimester abortions and breast cancer was published in a British medical journal. It demonstrated a higher incidence of breast cancer in women who had first-trimester abortions.

In response to that publication, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and pro-abortion/population control advocates joined together to attack the conclusions of the authors, and to block all efforts to disseminate that information to American physicians. The AMA, the ACS, and the pro-death lobby continue to insist that women must not be advised of the risk they incur when they destroy the life of their unborn child.

Current abortion policies in America are absolutely necessary to reduce our population. That is why a minor child can be taken from school to an abortion clinic without parental notification. Yet that same child cannot be given an aspirin without parental consent. It all has to do with population control.



Hurricane Deaths: US Govt At Fault

Mukoma Wa Ngugi

THE devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina is being compared to disasters in the "Third World", but with no specific countries or disasters named. And if not compared to this black hole or repository of disaster that is the "Third World", a comparison to Africa is as specific as it gets.

Comments and phrases like "New Orleans is a scene from the Third World", "Like the Third World", "US handles the crisis like a Third World country", "Bodies floating on water reminiscent of Africa" etc, have been a constant with news commentators, analysts, members of the United States Senate and Congress and other sections of American society commenting on New Orleans.

The accompanying statements to these have been "I cannot believe this is America" or "This is not supposed to happen in America". It is supposed to, and can only, happen somewhere else.

Attending a food festival event in Madison, Wisconsin, in the mid-west of the US, I overheard a joke: "Where is New Orleans again? Reply: New Orleans is next to Somalia."

What role is the "Third World" playing in how Americans are dealing with the disaster? Where does the "Third World" fit in the imagination of the American?

What does it mean to say that this is not supposed to happen in the US? To me, it is almost as if by displacing disasters and human suffering to the "Third World", the New Orleans disaster is not really happening in the US.

New Orleans is "out there" and everyone else is safe in America that the crisis in New Orleans is happening in a "Third World" outpost and the US remains rich, strong and invulnerable. The American citizen has been stewing in nationalism, manifest destiny and the myth of the democratic society that errors but never oppresses or marginalises for so long that even a natural disaster cannot be seen and understood outside this lens.

And the fact that most of the victims are predominantly poor and African American is not being understood as a creation of very specific domestic policies and conservative ideologies. It has to be filtered through the "Third World" as if a disaster from that "part of the world" somehow managed to sneak through the porous Mexican borders.

Bush's remarks

It is interesting, therefore, to look at US President George W. Bush's remarks after touring New Orleans on September 2 following four days of inaction. His first sentence was: "I've just completed a tour of some devastated country."

A detached statement but it gets worse - a little later he says: "I know the people of this part of the world are suffering . . ." and he goes on to talk about how progress is being made. Then he says: " The people in this part of the world have got to understand . . ." Shortly after this, he says: "You know, I'm going to fly out of here in a minute, but I want you to know that I'm not going to forget what I've seen" and again refers to his constituents as "good folks of this part of the world".

It is almost as if he is in a different country consoling its citizenry. He himself is so detached about what is happening in the very country he leads that he refers to it as "this part of the world". As far as I know, no one in the mainstream media picked this up because they, too, are reporting on that "part of the world".

Believing that humour is the best medicine, in the same speech Bush also makes a rather tasteless joke: "I believe the town where I used to come (to) from Houston, Texas, to enjoy myself, occasionally too much, will be that very same town that it will be a better place to come to."

Now, this is a President who, up to this point, has not visited New Orleans, a disaster area that is being acknowledged as probably the worst in recent US history. Yet, speaking to an evacuated, wounded and dying constituency, he refers to their drowned city that was their whole life as his old partying ground.

All in all, Bush gives the kind of speech a visiting leader would make during a hurriedly prepared Press conference after being caught unawares by a natural disaster. It captures his inability to empathise, to really be one with the victims.

The Myth and the "Third World"

An American dying in a natural disaster will look like a human being dying in any natural disaster and not necessarily like an African. A homeless American looks like any homeless human being and not always like an African. And a natural disaster should not be seen as somebody else's natural disaster, but as one that afflicts all humanity. We are of a common humanity.

It is this myth that only other countries torture and detain that has led to Abu Ghraib. It is the myth that only other countries have political prisoners that keeps political activists like Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier in American jails for fighting American marginalisation.

It is the belief that only other countries exile those that oppose their policies that has led to the bounty on Assata Shakur - exiled in Cuba for fighting for African American rights - being raised to US$1 million.

And it is the myth that only other countries ignore and exploit their poor that led to the disaster in New Orleans. But there are ways in which America is like the "Third World".

Privatisation, which in "Third World" countries becomes structural adjustment programmes, has been happening in the US since the Reagan years of small government; through the Clinton years that saw a full assault on welfare and affirmative action originally designed to buoy the marginalised and through the Bush years that have been rewarding the rich while taking away from the poor through Federal and Supreme Court nominations that support big business and reduce the power of labour unions, among other things.

These have been the years of "blaming the victim" while preying on them. They are poor because they are lazy - enter the "welfare queen". While mainstream US was busy trying to convince itself that poverty and racism were things of the past or happened only to other nations, the marginalised were becoming even more vulnerable.

Most of the victims in New Orleans are black and poor - race and class - an inversion of Franz Fanon's "One is rich because he/she is white and one is white because he/she is rich" to read: "One is poor because he/she is black and one is black because he/she is poor."

Just like in the "Third World" in times of natural disasters and wars, it is the most victimised in New Orleans that are doing most of the dying.


The reasons why the poor couldn't leave the city are quite easy to understand: They couldn't afford doing so. They simply did not have cars or money for transportation, are jobless, or live pay check to pay check and couldn't have had any money saved up for relocation.

Where poor people owned houses to which they had mortgaged their lives, where their homes had become the marker of their humanity and achievement, staying put and essentially fighting for their lives was the only option. Like the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, or the ongoing genocide in Darfur, this particular disaster had been telegraphed - we all knew it was going to happen.

More political and economic will, including a more comprehensive effort to evacuate the city of New Orleans, could have minimised human suffering. What makes it even worse is that the millions being pledged now by private citizens and corporations and the US$10,5 billion initially pledged by the government could have saved New Orleans 10 times over through improvement of infrastructure.

Because of the federal government's push for privatisation - which translates into public services being slashed or sold to private companies - perhaps the government simply no longer has structures in place to handle disasters.

This could explain why Bush ended his speech with these words: "If you want to help, if you're listening to this broadcast, contribute cash to the Salvation Army and the Red Cross." Each death in New Orleans was preventable. But money is not made in prevention, but in reconstruction.

Soon, like in Iraq, the big contracts for reconstruction will be on their way - some corporations will make a killing. Let the bidding begin. Also, it is with a sense of irony that one reads of corporations like Wal-Mart contributing millions of dollars to the relief efforts yet were their employees in New Orleans working in better conditions and with better pay, some of those who couldn't afford to evacuate would have been able to do so.

These corporations are responsible for the loss of jobs through outside contracting to sweatshops in "Third World" countries where, in turn, occasional fires break out leading to hundreds of deaths.

In "Third World" countries, they no longer pay government taxes in the tax-free trade zones, leading to further destruction of already fragile and poor economies. Where these corporations have remained in the US as retailers and manufacturers, they have seen to wages being cut.

They are rabidly against unions and essentially use the community the same way colonial companies used colonised communities - for cheap labour, extraction of raw materials and, of course, as buyers of products whose production is finished elsewhere.

Thus, coupled with a government that has engineered its own version of structural adjustment to maximise profit, and corporations that economically and politically colonise a community, the vulnerability - which in real terms is the result of victimisation - seen in New Orleans is not a surprise.

Rather, it is the culmination of well-planned and well-orchestrated policies that consolidate wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the poor. Globalisation is not resulting in a world that becomes better as it gets smaller, but rather in a world where poverty becomes more prevalent and more apparent.

This globalisation of poverty makes New Orleans a village in everybody's backyard. Instead of outsourcing disaster to an unnamed "Third World", it seems to me that citizens of the US should be placing the responsibility for the preventable deaths and suffering in New Orleans on their government and corporate board rooms.

l Mukoma Wa Ngugi is the author of Conversing with Africa: Politics of Change (KPH, 2003); and A Malignant History: Looking at America, forthcoming from Kimaathi Publishing House (KPH).

Death toll in the New Orleans hurricane, mostly due to broken levees which the government refused to repair: 

2,000 kids
still missing

Hurricane death toll jumps to 816, with 6,000 adults unaccounted for


Posted: September 18, 2005



Date: 10/20/2003


SPECIAL LIMITED-TIME OFFER: Get jaw-dropping CD or audiotape, plus inspiring July 4 speech by Alan Keyes -- and receive most acclaimed pro-life book FREE (a $19.95 value).

Attendees of a national conference for abortion providers watched and listened with rapt attention as the inventor of the partial-birth abortion procedure narrated a video of the grisly procedure – and then burst into applause when the act was over and the unborn child destroyed.

The disturbing and eye-opening event, featuring abortion doctor Martin Haskell addressing members of the National Abortion Federation, was captured on audiotape.

Calmly and dispassionately describing each step of the process – up to and including the insertion of the scissors into the base of the baby's head, followed by the sound of the suction machine sucking out the baby's brain – Haskell walks his audience through the procedure that opponents hope will finally be banned during this congressional session.

At the end of the procedure, after the late-term, fully developed unborn child's life has been violently and painfully terminated, the audience breaks out into applause.

Now, WorldNetDaily is making available to its readers a CD (or audiotape) of this shocking abortion-industry insider event.

"For the first time, America will actually hear a child being brutally killed by this procedure while the abortionist coldly and dispassionately describes every step of the process," says Mark Crutcher, founder of Life Dynamics, the Denton, Texas, pro-life organization that obtained the tape and has reproduced it. "Now the American people will be confronted with the reality of abortion. And this time no one will be able to claim that the pro-life movement is exaggerating. After all, these are the abortion industry's own words!"

Titled "Fire & Ice," Side A exposes partial-birth abortion as never before, culminating with extended excerpts from Haskall's macabre presentation and the audience's applause at the end of the controversial and brutal abortion.

Side B contains a powerful address given by Dr. Alan Keyes on Independence Day, 2003. Considered by many to be the most passionate and articulate pro-life speaker in America, "Keyes speech is guaranteed to light a fire in the heart of every patriot who still respects the principles upon which this nation was founded," said Crutcher. "This needs to be heard in every home and church in America."

Special Offer: Those ordering the "Fire & Ice" recording will receive free a copy of Crutcher's unique book, "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice."

Crutcher's book is an uncensored look at America's most wrenching social issue. Crutcher's Life Dynamics brought about the 1999 congressional hearings on the sale of aborted baby parts as well as the more recent undercover investigation in which it demonstrated that virtually all Planned Parenthood affiliates fail to report clear cases of statutory rape to authorities.

"Lime 5: Exploited by Choice" fully documents that women are being sexually assaulted, mutilated and killed inside perfectly legal abortion clinics in numbers that have never before been made public. (Editor's note: This book includes graphic descriptions of sexual molestation in abortion clinics, and is not suitable for young readers.)

The book also shows:

* how pro-choice organizations have used raw political power to fight off regulation of their industry;

* how a massive cover-up of abortion-industry disasters is being carried out by an agency of the U.S. government;

* how the abortion industry is collapsing because of the toll abortions take on the people who perform them;

* the medical evidence of a connection between the rise in America's abortion rate and a parallel rise in breast cancer;

* the barriers faced by abortion-injured women who seek compensation in the courts; and

* suggestions for solving all of these problems.

For a limited time, "Lime 5," which normally sells for $19.95, will be sent FREE to readers who order the new CD (or audiotape) "Fire and Ice" for only $9.95. (Offer good for U.S.A. only.)

Other inquiries may be addressed to

Copyright 2002




"The Cairo Conference"

In 1994 the United Nations began its work in evaluating the results of the conference on population that had been held ten years earlier, in Mexico City. From the very beginning of the preparations, it became evident that the ground work that had been laid would be set aside and a new 'agenda' would soon manifest itself.

It quickly became clear that the understanding and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as most of the world recognized them, including the right to life and human responsibility would come under attack.

Several factors aggravated the situation, most probably fueled by a widespread panic over the specter of a so-called "dangerously over-populated earth". Many people, including anti-population planners seized on the issue.

At the same time, all the evil fruit of the sexual revolution of the 1960s came to the fore. Radical groups joined forces with representatives of population-control lobbies, long practiced in manipulating issues, attitudes and statistics.

As it eventually became clear that this fear of overpopulation was unfounded, the more radical governments’ demand for "women’s reproductive rights" appeared; and eventually in the negotiations over the draft of the meeting’s Programme of Action, some delegations launched an attack on the idea of the traditional family. Many of the same delegates pressed for the proclamation of "an international right to abortion."

In response to this, the Holy See delegation, with the help of a few courageous countries, entered upon an intense series of negotiations over the language to be contained in the document which the Conference wished to adopt. In the end, no international right to abortion was proclaimed, and one paragraph of the Cairo document specifically rejects abortion "as a means of family planning." However, they were unable to prevent the Conference from finishing by calling for billions of dollars to be spent for "reproductive health" and "family planning" which would serve to further the ends of population control, while only vaguely conceding that "additional funds" would be needed to develop poor nations.

Subtle attacks against family and population links from the Catholic viewpoint


by  Bill Cooper (now deceased)

AIDS is Man-made

by Bill Cooper


To All,

During my talks in Las Vegas last weekend I revealed a few things about aids that I have been keeping close to my chest. I have already revealed that I saw that AIDS was man made to eliminate the undesirable elements of society while I was attached to Naval Security and Intelligence. I stated this fact in my paper "The Secret Government." Now for the rest of the story.

The first study was made in 1957 by scientists meeting in Huntsville Alabama. That study resulted in "Alternative 3." Another study was made by the Club of Rome in 1968 to determine the limits to growth. The result of the study was that civilization as we know it would collapse shortly after the year 2000 unless the population was seriously curtailed. Several Top Secret recommendations were made to the ruling elite by Dr. Aurelio Peccei of the Club of Rome. The chief recommendation was to develop a microbe which would attack the auto immune system and thus render the development of a vaccine impossible. The orders were given to develop the microbe and to also develop a cure and a prophylactic. The microbe would be used against the general population and would be introduced by vaccine administered by the World Health Organization. The prophylactic was to be used by the ruling elite. The cure will be administered to the survivors when they decide that enough people have died. It will be announced as newly developed. This plan was called Global 2000. The cure and the prophylactic are suppressed. Funding was obtained from the U.S. Congress under H.B. 15090 where $10 million was given to the Department of Defense to produce "a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired." "Within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease causing organisms.

Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease." The project was carried out at Fort Detrick Maryland. Since large populations were to be decimated the ruling elite decided to target the "undesirable elements of society" for extermination. Specifically targeted were the black, hispanic, and homosexual populations. The name of the project that developed AIDS is MKNAOMI. The African continent was infected via smallpox vaccine in 1977. The U.S. population was infected in 1978 with the hepatitis B vaccine through the Centers for Disease Control and the New York Blood Center. You now have the entire story. The order was given by the POLICY COMMITTEE of THE BILDERBERG GROUP based in Switzerland. Other measures were also ordered. The one you will be able to check the easiest is the Haig - Kissinger Depopulation Policy which is administered by the State Department.

When you put this information out do not edit it and please give me and this board full credit as the source of the information. Please post the board phone number with this file. That is how I stay alive. This board is THE CITIZENS AGENCY FOR JOINT INTELLIGENCE, SYSOP - WILLIAM COOPER, (602) 567-6725

To aid you in your research of this CRIME the name of the report was "THE LIMITS TO GROWTH" A REPORT FOR THE CLUB OF ROME'S PROJECT ON THE PREDICAMENT OF MANKIND. In April 1968 the study began in the Academia dei Lincei in Rome Italy. They met at the instigation of Dr. Aurelio Peccei. The Top Secret recommendations of the results of the study were made by Dr. Aurelio Peccei who pledged not to use the prophylactic and not to take the cure should the microbe be developed and should he contract the disease. Dr. Peccei was hailed as a great hero for deciding to take the same risk as the general population. The public results of the study were published in 1972. The MIT project team that participated in the study are listed below:

Dr. Dennis L. Meadows, director, United States 
Dr. Alison A. Anderson, United States (pollution) 
Dr. Jay M. Anderson, United States (pollution) 
Ilyas Bayar, Turkey (agriculture) 
William W. Behrens III, United States (resources) 
Farhad Hakimzadeh, Iran (population) 
Dr. Steffen Harbordt, Germany (socio-political trends) 
Judith A Machen, United States (administration) 
Dr. Donella H. Meadows, United States (population) 
Peter Milling, Germany (capital) 
Nirmala S. Murthy, India (population) 
Roger F. Naill, United States (resources) 
Jorgen Randers, Norway (population) 
Stephen Shantzis, United States (agriculture) 
John A. Seeger, United States (administration) 
Marilyn Williams, United States (documentation) 
Dr. Erich K. O. Zahn, Germany (agriculture)

When the study was completed in 1969 U.N. Secretary General U Thant made this statement:

"I do not wish to seem over-dramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems I have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control." U Thant, 1969

MKNAOMI was developed by the Special Operations Division (SOD) scientists at Ft. Detrick, Maryland under the supervision of the CIA and for the CIA. A reference to the project MKNAOMI can be found in "The Intelligence Community" By Fain et al, Bowker, 1977.

I swear that all of the above information is true and correct to the best of my memory and knowledge. I give this information to the people of the world in hopes that someone will have the courage and resources to help me end this madness. The illuminati (the order) are in complete control of most of the world and they have declared war against the general populations of all nations. We must stop them at all costs. Please help me for I cannot do it alone. Please send this file without editing to everyone that you know and ask them to do the same. God bless you all.

William Cooper 
19744 Beach Blvd., Ste. 301 
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648

To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed. 
Taken from

N.A.A.A.P. Perspective


Fall 1994—Vol. I, No. 2

AIDS vs. the Population Bomb

As I write, (8 Sept.) there is a major international conference underway in Cairo, Egypt. The topic of discussion is how to put the breaks on the world population explosion. Government sponsored birth control and abortion are always hot topics of debate at such gatherings. The accepted terminology is "family planning." But what we are really seeing discussed is how governments, individual governments and eventually a world government, will be controlling our personal reproductive lives in the future.

For decades the population explosion has been recognized as a potential threat to human comfort levels — especially those of the industrialized West. Though the problem is probably not as critical as it is being made out to be, it is nonetheless a matter for concern. After all, there's only enough room for so many. Nature's own population control mechanisms have been thwarted by the good intentions of those in the developed countries who have worked tirelessly to save lives and reduce child mortality rates. Now the same people are overcome with concern for the problems their successes have caused. Modern medicine has stymied nature's own attrition systems and mass warfare, (which has always served as a form of population control) has become too dangerous for the ruling elites of the world to consider. (At least until they consolidate their power into a single world government with a monopoly on all weapons of mass destruction.)

The reasoning in the ivory towers of the world elite is if something isn't done about alarming Third World birth rates, the teaming masses of poor and under nourished could someday threaten their own peace and tranquility. The growing numerical imbalance between haves and have-nots is looked upon as a potential powder keg, fused and awaiting a spark to set it off. The explosion, they reason, will lead to the have-nots rising up and taking whatever they need from the haves. Better defuse the bomb now than face the hordes later.

The leaders of industrialized nations feel that the problem can best be addressed by limiting reproductive freedom. They see stopping the ungodly high birth rates in the poor countries as the most promising solution. Third World leaders, on the other hand, tend to think the primary problem is the ungodly high per capita levels of consumption in the industrialized West. The solution they seek is a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources. The great debate, therefore, centers on a two-pronged approach.

1. International birth control . Of course this primarily effects the poor to whom children are either wage earning capital assets, or extra helping hands, and their old age social security (in the case of the Third World), or little welfare-enhancing bread tickets, (in the case of the Western welfare state, such as the United States). Wealthy people, to whom children are often little more than a pain in the neck, are self-limiting. They don't have time for more than the one or two children necessary to carry on the family name. Working people in industrialized nations are also self-limiting, since they usually cannot afford more than one or two children. (In the U.S. many white people have come to feel a little doubtful of the seemliness of perpetrating their race at all. Anglo-Saxons, in particular, seem to have been conditioned to accept guilt and a form of racial self-loathing.)

2. A forced lowering of living standards in the advanced nations. This is so the poor under-privileged classes in the Third World can hope to get their rightful share. This is international redistribution of wealth from those who produce it to those who, for whatever reason, do not.

Naturally, the first option is played up in the rich nations while the second is played up in the poor nations. Both are on the table, and both are part and parcel of the globalist agenda. Neither solution threatens the ruling elites, of course, since they are securely above the fray. Their intent and expectation is to rule and do well no matter what happens.

The idea of population reduction through nuclear war, of course, has long been discarded as too dangerous to the ruling elite. Now the problem is preventing such wars, at least until they've found out how to do it without taking too much risk themselves. The concept of population control through super-secret biological warfare is never mentioned, but it is probably also very much on the table — or more accurately, under the table. Both world wars ushered in and developed the technological concepts of a variety of methods of selective mass destruction of large populations. Now, with the advances in the fields of genetic engineering, truly startling things are possible and probably likely, if not already underway.

Take the AIDS epidemic for example. Now I don't pretend to have any special expertise or knowledge in this field. I merely point out some rather suspicious and conspicuous points of interest that have caught my attention. Call me a cynic and perhaps an over-eager conspiracy theorist, but it appears that AIDS could easily have been a modestly successful pilot population reduction project. I say modest because people don't seem to be dying of AIDS in quite as large of numbers as at first predicted and feared. It now seems very unlikely that the epidemic will come near solving the population problem. But take a close look at the groups who have suffered most from AIDS. At a glance it is obvious that they comprise a spectrum of peoples that a Hitler might have targeted. Essentially, poor blacks and other minorities, homosexuals, and drug abusers. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Look at all of the other strange incongruities relating to AIDS. Everything about the disease and how it has been handled has been somewhat peculiar from the very beginning. One would have had to be blind and deaf to fail to note the strange character of the official response to it. Several authoritative books have been written on the peculiarities of this new killer in our midst. Many are written by AIDS dissidents to counter the conventional wisdom on the subject. Some have argued convincingly that AIDS is indeed a man-made disease that was either intentionally or unintentionally unleashed upon humanity. Was AIDS developed in a biological warfare lab? If so, the perpetrators would go to great lengths to prevent the truth from being told.

Initially there were charges and counter charges by the U.S. (presumably CIA) and the Soviet KGB with regard to the origin of AIDS. Each pointed an accusing finger at the other. These charges promptly disappeared from the print media and were never mentioned on national TV.

Then it was discovered that the outbreaks of AIDS in central Africa and other places coincided geographically with the World Health Organization's smallpox vaccination programs in those areas. The experimental hepatitis-B vaccine pilot program in the United States that essentially targeted the homosexual community appears, according to some, to correlate with the outbreak of AIDS among homosexuals. These things made headlines around the world, but not in the United States. Was this "responsible reporting," on the part of our news media, by failing to report at all? Maybe so, but something smells fishy. We did hear quite a bit about the green monkey connection, however — a laughable, likely story. No newspaper bothered to mention, however, that the green monkey is used extensively in laboratory research. In any case, the whole green monkey hypothesis has subsequently been allowed to quietly disappear. Coincidence? Maybe.

What really struck me was that while the medical and scientific community professed to know so little about the disease, they also professed to know just a little too much, too quickly. Tracing it to the green monkey in the wilds of Africa, was just one instance. Confidently assuring us that AIDS couldn't be spread by casual contact, while at the same time declaring that it was spreading into the general population at an alarming rate, and that it had a latent period of up to a decade and more was another. This seemed like classic double-speak bordering on the criminally insane — unless, of course, they actually knew a lot more than they were telling.

Both were glaring instances of claiming to know a little too much too quickly in my opinion. Either AIDS was the dangerous killer it was being made out to be, or it wasn't really that much of a threat. The message seemed to be both. But how could that be? Right off the bat I got the distinct feeling that more was known about the disease than was being told to the American people. The alternate was that somebody with too much power was spreading comforting "facts" that were not yet possible to know.

Even more telling, and less under- standable, was the fact that when the HIV virus was officially declared the cause of AIDS, and it became generally acknowledged, (or wrongfully declared) that the disease was spreading into the general population, HIV testing to determine how widespread it might already be, and perhaps get a handle on it, was effectively outlawed! This, more than any other single thing, demonstrated that there was something strikingly unusual and unprecedented about the alleged AIDS epidemic. An official policy to prevent normal medical procedures and preventive measures in the case of a deadly communicable disease epidemic made no sense whatsoever. Even I, an ignorant hillbilly, could see this. AIDS had apparently become more of a political problem than a public health problem. Why? Was AIDS so special that it warranted an entirely new, and seemingly bizarre, patently reckless, approach? It appears so.

Why? The question begs at least some speculative answers. Perhaps, if a broad testing program had been undertaken, more people would have been found to have HIV than was politically or medically expedient in light of stated "facts." It might have been somewhat embarrassing had the numbers turned out to be too large — or even too small. Then, too, if HIV had been found to be almost entirely confined to the homosexual community, the homosexuals, (now a powerful political force) would have been embarrassed, and perhaps a little suspicious. Maybe even a little mad.

Maybe it was true, and known to be true, (as many distinguished dissident doctors and scientists claimed, and were consequently disowned, disenfranchised, and discredited by the AIDS establishment) that HIV really wasn't the culprit in the first place. Another possible reason, (particularly plausible because of the homosexual community's aggressively active role in formulating AIDS policy) was that testing was intentionally delayed in order to give the disease time to become more widespread in the heterosexual community, and thus hopefully shed its apparent homosexual connection in the public eye. Unthinkable? Sorry, the seemingly inexplicable nature of our official AIDS policy provokes unthinkable thoughts.

Another possible reason — and this one is the most diabolical, conspiracy- mongerized theory of all — was that spread of the disease was to be intentionally unchecked in order to eliminate large segments of certain populations. Selective population reduction. Planned mass liquidations to enhance and supplement ineffective family planning efforts. Another unthinkable possibility? Remember, the population problem is perceived by many at the very highest levels of authority as perhaps the most serious problem ever to face mankind. It may be deemed, by a diabolical few, to justify radical, unthinkable, solutions. Even if it were true, who would ever believe such a thing? Anybody suggesting it would be laughed, or put, away.

As startling as it may seem, long after we had all been assured that the nation's blood supply had been cleaned up and could be considered pretty safe, I was recently shocked to read in an establishment newspaper that (Surprise!) the blood supply hasn't been cleaned up at all! What could possibly be the justification for one of the nation's largest blood banks to knowingly, and seemingly criminally, refrain from screening its blood supplies for HIV these past many years? What is shocking is that they admit it, and don't seem to be overly concerned at the repercussions. Nor are they apparently in any hot water with the Public Health Service.

In spite of this admission, the latest reports claim that although African and Asian HIV infection rates continue to sky-rocket, HIV infections in the U.S. and other Western countries seem to have leveled off or are falling. How can this be? Are we all practicing safe sex, avoiding doctors and dentists, and staying out of hospitals? Are we being careful to send all our contaminated blood to Africa and Asia? Apparently so.

The one and only measure being actively promoted to cope with the spread of AIDS, both domestically and internationally, is condom usage. If everybody in the world, through fear of AIDS, can be coerced into habitually using condoms, an effective means of birth control has automatically become a byproduct of the AIDS epidemic. Could this be the real purpose and reasoning behind the AIDS scare? An elaborate birth control scheme? In any case, the apparent message is that condom use is up and AIDS is down, so go on enjoying unlimited safe, non-procreative sex kids! (I'd like to have a list of Trojan stockholders. I'm sure it would be revealing.)

There are many reputable AIDS dissidents who don't buy into the official lines. But they too often disagree and sometimes contribute to the confusion. One school of thought has HIV and AIDS spreading like wildfire, faster than ever imagined, and the future death toll truly cataclysmic. This school believes that HIV is spread more easily than is assumed, and that safe sex, as promoted by the international health powers, is not safe at all but patently suicidal.

Another school claims that HIV and AIDS are rather difficult, or almost impossible according to some, to spread from person to person by either casual or normal sexual contact. In this line of thinking, the initial spread of the disease must have come through massive inoculations using contaminated vaccines, as mentioned above. Subsequent spread of the disease, according to this theory, is almost exclusively through blood to blood transfers or direct inoculation, i.e., promiscuous, rough, reckless, and kinky sex, I.V. drug use, blood transfusions, invasive surgery, or visits to diabolical dentists.


There is yet another twist, and this one makes as much sense as any of the other allegations and "truths" surrounding AIDS and HIV. Perhaps more. Only time will tell.

This third line of thinking is that the HIV virus has nothing to do with AIDS in the first place. Many prominent medical people have held this position from the beginning but have been shouted down in the multi-billion dollar feeding frenzy that has evolved around officially accepted HIV/AIDS doctrine and approved research. HIV/AIDS has become a multi-billion dollar industry rivaling even the cancer establishment. AIDS medical research grants are eagerly sought by those willing to agree with the accepted AIDS dogma. Those who don't are locked out from the goodies.

This school of thought concedes that HIV is probably wide-spread but that it is really of little concern. It is a generally acknowledged fact, (even among straight-faced AIDS establishment types) that not all AIDS patients test HIV positive, and that not all HIV positives come down with AIDS. Since general testing for HIV is illegal, nobody has the slightest idea how many people are HIV positive. (HIV statistics are extrapolated.) It may even be more common than the flu. Magic Johnson is still alive and apparently well, as are many other "long term survivors." Children born of HIV mothers are often found negative. Some HIV positives turn negative. How can this be if HIV is supposed to be a death sentence?

A medical doctor named Robert E. Willner is so sure that HIV and AIDS are unrelated that he has publicly inoculated himself with blood from an HIV positive hemophiliac to prove it. His contention is that the whole AIDS scare is nothing more than a gigantic and deadly fraud. He has written a recently published book called Deadly Deception: The Proof That Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause Aids which documents his research and findings.

AIDS, Dr. Willner claims, is not a disease at all but a cruel hoax. At best, it is a syndrome which leads to death only because the AIDS patient is sick and immune deficient in the first place — due to factors relating to lifestyle, general health, or medications, rather than HIV. HIV, he states, can accompany any number of medical conditions, but is not itself a factor of concern. But once a person is diagnosed HIV positive, (and remember, only a very few people are tested) the diagnosis tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The patient then "knows" he will sooner or later get full-blown AIDS and die. In order to stave it off, and enhance his quality of life, he is encouraged to take AZT, the approved AIDS drug.

This particular treatment for HIV infection is apparently almost universally prescribed. Yet it has long been known to be a very dangerous drug, crippling the immune system and causing the very diseases and symptoms and complications associated with AIDS, according to Dr. Willner. It makes healthy HIV patients sick. Then, after some time of declining health, they get AIDS and die. Others with HIV, who avoid AZT treatment, often live on in apparent good health for years. The establishment doctors are baffled by this.

Even many of the mainline researchers who subscribe to the official AIDS line admit that there is probably an unknown co-factor, or co-factors, involved in AIDS — that HIV may not act alone. Could the co-factor be an unhealthy life-style or the use of recreational drugs? Could AZT be the co-factor that seals their doom? It seems unthinkable, but Doctor Willner believes that AZT is what is actually killing AIDS patients, and that HIV is innocent of all charges.

Being neither a medical doctor, scientist, or prophet, I don't know where the truth of the matter lies. But I have the distinct impression that lies abound in what the government and medical establishment has been telling us about AIDS, as well as many other things. Just why our own, or any, government would fall into lock-step on the wrong side of the fence on any given issue, especially something like AIDS, is difficult imagine. (Unless you are a cynic like me.)

Obviously, there is an ongoing fear campaign with regards to AIDS. I see it regularly on TV. It was admitted a long time ago that a cure or vaccine for AIDS is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Since there is no hope in the offing for a medical solution, (though billions of dollars are being poured down the rat-hole) the answer for well into the next century appears to be confined to more and better condoms. No matter what the truth is regarding AIDS, a massive, world-wide, defacto birth control program is already well underway whether or not any agreements are reached in Cairo. Pretty sneaky! Camden



September 25, 2002

Sonnie Ekwowusi


Population issues have once more re-surfaced in the front burner of public discourse. I watched the edition of the Patito's gang which dealt with the issues on Minaj TV on August, 3l, 2002.

Prior to this, the honourable Minister of Health, professor A.B.C Nwosu was quoted as saying that over population was responsible for the poor quality of life and standard of living in Nigeria. First, anybody who is conversant with what Rev. Fr. George Ehusani dubbed in his book as the complex politics of population control in Africa and the Third World which reached its crescendo in the 80s will understand that Nwosu was neither speaking for himself nor for the federal government. Certainly, he was speaking for the neo-colonialists and powerful international agencies like the IMF, World Bank, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) etc which have been ceaselessly labouring to reduce the population of Third World countries. They have been achieving this goal through powerful, advocacy and by making population reduction a pre-condition for granting developmental aids to developing countries.

Their popular hype goes this way; "Nigeria is over-populated. Consequently, quality of life in Nigeria is low. Therefore, if Nigeria needs any loan or other assistance from the IMF or the World Bank, the pre-condition is that she must be ready to reduce her population through compulsory mass sterilization of men and women, infanticide, abortion, euphemistically referred to as family planning etc". Part of the strategy is to put something in women to make them impotent, unable to bear children in the future. Can you imagine your wife coming back from a government hospital with her womb closed without your consent?. I heard that some of these "do-gooders" carrying out immunization programme do mix the vaccines they administer to kids with other concoctions capable of making the kids impotent for life. So, parents beware! You can see how desperate these people are in reducing our population.

There are many sinister motives behind the well-funded advocacy for the reduction of the population of Africa. Some argue that because Europe and America are becoming extinct they are bent on perpetually keeping the African population under control for fear that Africa might rise one day to become a world power. You may dismiss this as a simplistic and illogical reasoning but you might change your mind after the excursion into the history of Margaret Sanger, birth control and her Magazine called the Woman rebel, Marie Stopes, Charles Darwin and the superior race theory, Rev. Thomas Malthus theory, International Planned Parenthood Federation of London which begot Planned Parenthood Federation of Nigeria. I think that after the scramble for Africa by the turn of the 19th century, another insidious and pernicious scramble has been persistent in the continent. Whereas the first scramble was largely motivated by commercial interest, the second scramble hinges on distorting the social economic and political reality of Africa or what Tunji Bello has dubbed as the American doctoring system. One of these major distorting or doctoring is that Africa is suffering from hunger and disease due to over population. Consequently, the African soil has remained a testing and re-cycling ground for all sorts of strange ideas and propaganda. The American connection in this game plan through the USAID is evident. This body has spent scores of years supplying contraceptives and funding population control in Africa and Nigeria.

The population propaganda has been successfully sold to successive Health Ministers in Nigeria. In 1987, USAID and the Federal government under the wooing-hands of Professor Ransome-Kuti, the then Health Minister, spent a staggering sum of N288 million on the government population policy of one-woman-four children. Of course that policy, being the most fragrant abuse of human and family right, failed woefully.

Today, Nwosu is the latest victim of Western conspiracy. He is again following their written script from the same re-cycled erroneous idea of yesteryears.

In the 80s they used all kinds of adjectives and coined such frightening terms as population "explosion"bomb" etc to illustrate the demographic catastrophe that will befall Nigeria if she failed to heed the call and reduce her population. Even journalists, writers, artists, TV presenters, musicians were recruited to forecast a false demographic Armageddon. Remember Sunny Ade and Onyeka Onwenu's album entitled "Wait for me"?

By the mid 90s it seemed as if the hype on the population hoax was drowned. No. The propagandists and doomsayers had only changed tactics. Impelled by the HIV/AIDS scourge they have shifted from population explosion to the marketing of condoms. One of them said that AIDS is good for Africa because it will reduce her high population. Now that the population doomsayers are staging a dramatic come back, let's ask this old same question: Is Nigeria truly or really over populated. The answer is emphatic No. Granted that Nigeria demographic position is highly politicized, our population could be somewhere around 130 million, if I am not wrong. It is wrong for one to calculate the population of Nigeria by just looking at the large concentration of people in one's locality. For example, after being shocked by the countless sea of human heads at Oshodi, Lagos one cannot conclude that Nigeria is over populated. Everybody is in Lagos. My village is depleted because most village folks have fled in search of elusive jobs in Lagos. The same thing, I guess, applies to your village folks. Lagos is over populated but Nigeria is certainly not over populated.

But let's close our eyes for one moment and assume that Nigeria is over population. Is over population a curse ?. Can population growth lead to falling standard of living? The answers are double No. The anti- population argument is that if there are many people sharing the same cake, it will get smaller and smaller. They forget that the same people will not continue to eat one cake because they can bake more cakes so that could satisfy everybody. Besides, extremely densely populated countries like Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong even Japan that recently co-hosted the World Cup enjoy higher standard of living. In fact high population is inversely related to the Gross National Product (GNP). The higher a country's population, the higher its GNP.

Conversely, the lower the population the lower the GNP. Most renowned economists affirm that rapid population density is not an obstacle to economic development. What may be an obstacle is the rate of growth but not the growth itself. High population remains the key indicator of industrial growth. The causes of unemployment, poverty, street begging in Nigeria are mismanagement of the economy, inefficiency of government, monumental corruption, plundering of national treasury, government over spending and over subsidy, executive robbery either by the stroke of the pen or barrel of the gun. Not over population. Think of the monies stolen by our past leaders?. If all those stolen monies were recovered and directly spent on things that could improve the lot of the people, Nigeria would have been a better place today. As Mahatma Ghandi rightly said, there is enough for every man's need but not for every man's greed. We are a greedy lot. This is why we are plagued by genteel poverty amidst our natural and human resources. Was it not Alhaji Tafawa Balewa who said our political independence was nothing if not matched with economic independence?.

Today, everybody talks oil, dreams oil. All our stakes are in oil. Nobody is interested in agriculture or subsistence farming any longer. That Nigeria is the 26th poorest country in the world is not caused by over population. It is caused primarily by sheer neglect for others sectors and lack of productivity. All our National Development Plans from that of 1962 downward failed due to lack of implementation. For example, our Third Development Plan harped on food production. The then Obasanjo/Murtala military regime fashioned a slogan for food production called the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN). Shehu Shagari coined the Green Revolution. We even had the Umaru Dikko rice, the integrated rural agricultural programme, National accelerated food production programme etc. But they all failed principally due to corruption and mismanagement. Perhaps, if they had worked we would not be complaining about our population. The food crisis worsens every day. The oil boom is becoming our doom. The Naira currency has continued to noose-dive and depreciate in value.

The painful thing is that the solution seems not to be in sight. Now many of our political office holders are so pre-occupied with their respective re-election gambits that they have no time to think about the welfare of the people.

Ekwowusi writes from Lagos

The Massacres in Africa

What really happened to Christians in Rwanda between April and July of 1994 is a shocking story. After the Christian Tutsis were disarmed by governmental decree in the early 1990s, Hutu-led military forces began to systematically massacre the defenseless Christians beginning in April 1994 and continuing until July 1994. Using machetes rather than bullets, the Hutu forces created a state of terror within the helpless Christian population as they systematically butchered thousands.

The United Nations immediately convened hearings on Rwanda, but Madeline Albright, American Ambassador to the United Nations, argued strenuously that neighboring African nations should not be allowed to intervene until the "civil war had come to an end." In reality, there was no civil war, since those being slaughtered had no weapons with which to defend themselves; it was simply a matter of mass murder.

In addition to blocking intervention by neighboring nations, Madeline Albright also insisted that the word "genocide" not be used, and that United Nations forces stationed in Rwanda were not to be allowed to intervene. In the three months that followed, between one-half and three-quarters of a million Christians were systematically dismembered, hacked to death, and slaughtered in the bloody carnage that ensued. Tens of thousands of Christians were murdered in churches; tens of thousands more were murdered in hospitals and schools. On several occasions, United Nations soldiers stationed in Rwanda actually handed helpless Christians over to members of the Hutu militia. They then stood by as their screaming charges were unceremoniously hacked to pieces.

At the end of the carnage in late July 1994, the American government rewarded the Hutu murderers with millions of dollars in foreign aid. The American press has been silent about the fact that almost all people slaughtered were Christians, and that it was our government's policy that was primarily responsible for blocking efforts by neighboring African countries to intervene.

There are dozens of other examples of population control programs which have been implemented throughout our world by modern-day "Malthusians" in their effort to ensure that the world population is dramatically curtailed. To date it is estimated that far more than one billion human lives have been terminated as a result of the worldwide abortion programs financed by the United States. In addition, we are beginning to see the devastating effects of the AIDS epidemic as this plague begins to depopulate large areas of Asia and Africa. Rational efforts to address the HIV epidemic throughout the world continue to be blocked. Rather than utilizing proven public health methods, advocates of population control continue to promote both hedonistic sex education and condom distribution, which will only assure the disease will continue to spread.



DDT Saved Lives

Another more effective method of reducing world population was devised in the early 1960s by environmentalists and population-control adherents: blocking the use of DDT for mosquito and malaria control, which had been found to be extremely effective in saving human lives.

In 1970 the National Academy of Sciences, in their book Life Sciences, stated that, "In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria."

To population control advocates, this preservation of human life was intolerable, so they set out to outlaw further use of the pesticide. Up until 1970 all reliable scientific data had consistently demonstrated that DDT was safe for both humans and animals. Indeed, DDT was the safest pesticide ever known to mankind. Furthermore, it was inexpensive and could be widely used in third-world countries to control the spread of insect-borne diseases.

Accordingly, population control adherents set out to have DDT banned in the name of saving the environment. You probably remember the contrived stories declaring that DDT caused softening of eggshells, interfered with the balance of nature, and endangered humanity by entering the food chain. In truth, all of those stories were fabricated and part of a carefully coordinated program to block further use of the lifesaving pesticide.

William Ruckelshaus was a longtime member of the Environmental Defense Fund and Director of the EPA. He outlawed further use of DDT in 1972 despite the recommendation of the EPA Chairman Investigating Committee, which had heard six months of testimony on use of the pesticide, and had determined that DDT was completely safe. When Ruckelshaus outlawed further use of DDT, he signed the death warrant for hundreds of millions of helpless human beings living in third-world countries.

In Remembering Silent Spring and Its Consequences, Professor J. Gordon Edwards quoted from a speech by Victor Yanconne, founder of the Environmental Defense Fund. In that talk, Mr. Yanconne related a story told to him by a reporter who had asked Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, whether a ban on DDT wouldn't actually result in far greater use of more toxic pesticides. Dr. Wurster is reported to have replied, "So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any."

When asked by the same reporter, "Doctor, how do you square the killing of people with the mere loss of some birds?" Dr. Wurster is reported to have replied, "It doesn't really make a lot of difference, because organophosphate acts locally and only kills farm workers and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes."

If the National Academy of Sciences was correct in its 1970 assessment, we have probably lost over 600 million human lives during the past twenty-five years since advocates of population control succeeded in outlawing DDT.




What is perhaps most alarming to many conspiracy theorists are powers that the President and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) can assume during a state of national emergency, which the President can (and has) declared at any time. Each president going back in recent history declared 75-200+ national emergencies to justify issuing executive orders that have the power of legislation. Most of these executive orders have to do with the operation of government and foreign policy; one of Bill Clinton's executive orders, for example, required Federal buildings to become more energy-efficient. Other executive orders, however, are more ominous, which rendered into law powers of the Federal government during a national emergency. On September 30, 1973, Senators Frank Church (D-Idaho) and Charles McMathias (R-Maryland) made a joint statement regarding these orders:

"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call reserve forces amounting to two and a half million men to duty, institute martial law, seize and control all means of transportation, regulate all private enterprise, restrict travel and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of Americans . . .

"Most [of these laws] remain a potential source of virtually unlimited power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt to place the United States under authoritarian rule.

"While the danger of a dictatorship through legal means may seem remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through the use of emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the Weimar Republic."

How did the President gain these broad and dramatic powers? Again, by granting them to himself via executive order. In current times, despite the present wave of patriotism (with the Michigan Militia reportedly offering to help President Bush with homeland security), these powers, coupled with genuine emergencies now and in the future, could make one concerned. Coupled with ECHELON, a vast global intelligence-gathering network (and Carnivore, the FBI capability to read emails), they could make one nervous. Even paranoid.

I believe that Earling Carothers "Jim" Garrison, District Attorney for New Orleans who put local businessman Clay Betrand on trial in connection with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, sums it all up perfectly in the October 1967 Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: Many of the professional critics of the Warren Commission appear to be prompted by political motives: Those on the left are anxious to prove Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy within the establishment; and those on the right are eager to prove the assassination was an act of "the international Communist conspiracy." Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum--right, left or center?

JIM GARRISON: That's a question I've asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can't just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I'd turn up somewhere around the middle. Over the years, I guess I've developed a somewhat conservative attitude--in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrew-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right--particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the State and the individual's own responsibilities to humanity . . .

I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau; I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there has haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I've always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets at a time when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers. I'm concerned about all of this because it isn't a German phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change, there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow men.

What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly eroding into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the State. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and the Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.

In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here the process is more subtle, but the end results are the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the State and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.



FROM:  (page no longer available)
Sunstar News Service

MANILA, Feb. 20 (Sunstar) -- In 1965, before the UN, Pope John Paul VI stated, “You must strive to multiply bread so that it suffices for the tables of mankind,” and added that it would be nasty to “diminish the number of guests at the banquet of life,” suggesting that 
population-food policies must be dealt with according to the Christian tenet which emphasizes on the “right to life.”

No doubt, much of the earth’s surface is uncultivated and that the sea contains immeasurable riches. But it is an absurd extreme of technological optimism to expect great increases in food production to occur through the placing of more land under cultivation. Since man breeds so recklessly fast, they could ultimately crowd each other out of every available space. 

Suffice it to say that they are bound to reach that point where want and hunger multiply like themselves and then, at last, the needs of all these multitudes would drive mankind into madness. They will raise crop yields on fewer acres, push back deserts and jungles for more room, mine, bore, blast, delude, warp—and then destroy each other. What a dreary, stupid way to perish! 

Make no bones about it: The human 
population explosion and its declining spiral of natural resources is the greatest threat to the whole future of the species. Confronted with an overflowing sink, one doesn’t have to be a genius to choose whether to reach for a mop or the faucet. Time is dangerously over-ripe as far as the population control problem is concerned. There are too many people and too little food.

Therefore, don’t give me the crap that says, “Man doesn’t live by bread alone.” Jesus Christ, Himself, had to feed the multitude before He could preach the Beatitude. We cannot forever continue to multiply and subdue the earth without losing our standard of life and the natural beauty that is part of it. 

We have to show concern for God’s other creatures, too, you know. I submit that they, too, have the right to life. There is an ongoing battle of man versus his numbers and he is far outstripping nature’s bounty. Food production has fallen further behind burgeoning 

Thus, while there are temporary reversals of the trend, it seems inevitable that this will wrap-up to its logical conclusion: mass starvation. Then, survival of the fittest. And eventually, armageddon. Man’s unslackened appetite for destroying the Providence of the Earth will guarantee that whatever resources are still held by virgin lands will never sustain man in his quest and insatiable appetite for unlimited growth. 

One of the ominous facts of the current situation is that roughly more than half of the 
population is made up of the youth. Thus, as this mass of young people move into the reproductive years (what with the kind of role model young stars who lose their virginity like it’s gone out of style_have become to today’s kids), we’re going to see the greatest baby boom of all time. 

These youngsters are the powderkeg of the 
population explosion, you better believe it! Sad to say, the future generation will inherit a different world in which standards of survival would be more atavistic than rational. Our situation requires immediate action. The church that has not been notorious for pussyfooting about methodology recommends the rhythm method of contraception. Yet, even under the most careful controlled conditions, women using this technique still run about 25 percent risk of pregnancy. 

Worse, the church refuses to turn over friar lands for food production or share its enormous wealth to alleviate the plight of the have-nots. Thus, the “Vatican Roulette” would still be classified as potential demographic catastrophe. Family planning is important, no doubt, from the standpoint of health and welfare of individuals; but it does not control 

Stressing the right of parents to have the number of children they want, evades the basic question of 
population policy—which is how to give society the number of children it needs. By offering only the means of couples to control fertility, it neglects the means for society to do so. Alas, one couple may plan to have three children, another may want seven. 

In both cases they are a cause of the 
population problem, not a solution to it. By population control we mean a conscious regulation of the number of human beings to meet the needs not just of individual families but of society as a whole. Government, must therefore, be allowed to use its political power to combine agricultural development and population control and simultaneously reverse the deterioration of our environment before population pressure permanently ruins the future of the Filipino race. 

The secretaries of Health, Agriculture, DECS and DENR should put their acts together to minimize deleterious effects on ecology, stressing that the scheme should include an effective program of ecosystem restoration. To be sure, the essence of evolution is reproduction. But birth rate must be brought into balance with the death rate, just as a 
population-environment goal must be devised or mankind will breed itself into oblivion. 

Today, we are involved in events leading to famine as less lands are cultivated for food production while education is geared towards some disciplines other than agriculture. Sadly, in our haste to consume the fruits of the earth, we may yet be destroyed by its consequences. 

Indeed, lives may still be saved through dramatic programs to stretch the carrying capacity of the globe by increasing food production. Yet, they only provide a stay of execution. 

Unless they are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at 
population control using a system of incentives and penalties—if need be—or by compulsion, if voluntary methods fail—we may be reaching the end of living and the beginning of survival—sooner than necessary. (SNS)

Overpopulation is a concept people need to understand. Overpopulation affects the environment, economy, and many other aspects of the world as we know it. As the population grows, the amount of trash produced also grows. Landfills are the United States main way of getting rid of the waste products we produce, however as the population grows the amount of space on the earth is reduced and there is less space not only for humans, but the landfills as well. The ecological and human health impacts that landfills have so that they may make educated decisions concerning the placement of landfills. Other countries currently facing a rapidly growing population are also dealing with the waste increases. There are human health impacts of landfills, and other overpopulated countries waste management techniques.

Evidence of the effects of overpopulation is everywhere and incontrovertible. Environmentalists point to overcrowding as the root cause of air, earth, and water pollution causing increased loss of natural resources resulting in cataclysmic loss of biodiversity. "The planet's sixth great mass extinction is already in progress, experts warn," according to the February 1999 National Geographic, and humans are the source of that extinction.

Countries that were suggested as overpopulated included China, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, Thialand, Mexico and Japan.

Since 1850, worldwide population has increased 4-fold and per-capita energy consumption has risen 5-fold

These are the countries with the actual highest population growth heading for 2010:

1. China, 2. India 3. United States 4. Indonesia  5. Brazil  6. Pakistan  7. Bangladesh 8. Nigeria 9. Russia  10. Japan

My personal opinion is that the United States is #3 because we take in people from all over the world - way more than is good for the country.

Humans have caused worldwide changes such as widespread destruction (deforestation, desertification, and urban construction), alterations to the composition and geochemical processes of the atmosphere (addition of excess greenhouse gases, depletion of stratospheric ozone and generation of air pollution), overdrafts of groundwater, soil depletion and erosion, water pollution. Often times, population growth is measured in energy use because it is a reasonable measure that correlates to several types of environmental damages (Ehrlich, 1997). Some of these issues lead to other issues, such as deforestation. Deforestation can lead to a decrease in biodiversity, which is often taken for granted by people (Gehrt, 1995).




Little Black Box

By Alex DeMille

Move over, Y2K. There's another cheesy buzzword that's about to usurp your paranoia-inducing power: Y6B. Y6B refers to the year, or more precisely the day, that the earth's population hit six billion. That day was estimated to be Tues., Oct. 12, when the six billionth child popped out of one of 370,000 wombs that gave birth that day, in Sarajevo. This child, like every child born each day, had a 50 percent chance of being Asian. Each child also is likely to be poor. What does this mean for the world at large? Shrinking resources. Decreased standards of living. Famines, plagues, and war. Another surge in the number of Ivy League college applicants.

The population surge is really appalling when you think about it. The world population has increased by 20 percent since 1987. That's one billion more people in 12 years—that's a lot of folks. For the time being, America is just fine. Our economy is doing well, we manage our resources properly, and the general standard of living is on the rise. But there are other factors to consider. Remember this summer's drought that caused the regulation of many states' water supplies? What would have happened if there were twice as many people vying for the same water? This is a reality that is not too far off.


Third-world countries are suffering the most from the population explosion. Most of the earth's teenagers live in third-world countries; in a few years, when they are adults and have children of their own, the population will increase by exponential rates in places that cannot even support their current populations.

Countries like China have taken an active role in fighting the population explosion with legislation that limits each couple to only one child. This law seems alien and oppressive to many Westerners, but it is a real necessity in a nation as huge and dense in population as China. Yet nations with less powerful governments, such as India, have no similar legislation. Soon, India's population will surpass China's and become the largest on Earth.

Overpopulation will probably be one of the greatest catalysts for conflict in the coming century. Perhaps our wars of political vengeance and land seizure will seem petty to the 21st-century warrior, who will fight for such basic commodities as water and food. Maybe our ultimate downfall will not be the result of some technological monstrosity (à la nuclear holocaust,) but merely our expanding presence. Cold statistics are used to justify deer hunting. If deer weren't hunted, resources and living space would be spread so thin that even more of them would die. Such a disturbing calculation can be turned against our own race. If the population trend continues, in 100 years Earth will house 12 billion people living in deplorable conditions. However, according to one ecologist, if the population dropped to two billion by 2100, everyone would have a comfortably high standard of living.

These facts are not easy to reconcile. How does one speak of people in terms of billions and still maintain a sense of humanity? Are better living conditions worth the cost of 10 billion future lives? And how does one enact regulatory measures in third-world nations with governments too weak to enforce them? The prospect of population control is staggering, and by all reasonable accounts unsolvable. People will continue to procreate, multiply, and spread. Poor countries will become poorer as their populations grow exponentially and any vestige of resource management will crumble as people fight for basic necessities like food and water.

Of course, an optimist could argue that our technology will keep up with our numbers and that mankind will find a way to subsist and survive. But this is not true. The Green Revolution is over. We aren't growing any more food than we were in 1983. Genetically-engineered food has only gotten us so far. Widespread famine is almost inevitable, and with that comes the possibility of an even more destructive outcome: world war. Yes, with the new millennium around the corner, doomsday predictions have been popping up at a sickening rate. Yet a famine war is a real possibility if third-world political structures remain as weak as they are. While the six-billionth child is at once a testament to mankind's progress, she is surely also a sign of its doom.



Politicians' conspiracy

AT THE end of the day, it may well turn out that India and Pakistan will be great friends, with Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pervez Musharraf patting each other.

There is nothing quite like war to get rid of all the old and obsolete armaments and provide an excuse to buy state-of-the-art military equipment. This serves the double purpose of boosting national pride and keeping the international arms suppliers in business. There is also the bit about controlling the population explosion, not to mention increased unemployment should the armed forces not required in such large numbers.

Then, of course, there is the benefit of beating the war drums when the internal situation is beyond control and an external enemy is desperately needed to shift the focus. So, Indians and Pakistanis in the Gulf, don't bare your fangs at each other. It's probably all a conspiracy between your politicians. - Zainab bint Shahinshah, Abu Dhabi

Nuclear madness

WHEN the world started taking cognizance of the heinous crimes being committed in Gujarat and voices started to be raised from within India, the BJP demonstrated its presence of mind by diverting world attention from the carnage to war hysteria.

A majority of Indians, who find it difficult to make both ends meet, have no idea of the sheer magnitude of the disaster of a nuclear exchange.

Instead of building nations and the character of people, providing people with the basic necessities of life, that is clean drinking water, electricity and health facilities, what we are witnessing is a dance of threats and counter threats from Vajpayee and Musharraf. Instead of making their nations pollution-free, both are willing to let their population burn in a haze of radioactive fallout. All Indians and Pakistanis must understand that a nuclear exchange in the subcontinent would most certainly result in a holocaust. - Sheena Mittal, by e-mail

THIS refers to M. Murli's letter "Twisted logic" (KT, May 23). The correspondents he accuses of being biased are only trying to reason with India and the world that terrorists exist in every country. Their number varies, depending on the country's size and socio-political conditions.

It is, however, the duty of every government and not just Pervez Musharraf's government to take internal measures to safeguard its innocent citizens regardless of their cast or creed. Pulling guns on a neighbouring country which might already be a victim of terrorism is no solution. War is the worst terrorist, especially in case of a nuclear holocaust. - Bina Khan,


The following quote from _The_Shadow_War,_European_

: Resistance_1939_-_1945_ (written by Henry Michel, published : by Harper & Row) is of value in handling the existing scene.

: Psychiatrists urged these measures on Hitler and carried them out.

L. Ron Hubbard associates psychiatrists with Hitler, claiming they were the real force behind World War II and the Holocaust. This association in the minds of Scientologists is a Dead Agent technique whose purpose is to justify the actions of Scientology agents against the psychiatry profession.

: David Rockefeller is priding himself on having reduced
: U.S. population to a decline and arrested the human
: population explosion by sterilization, abortion and other measures.

: The Rockefellers financed the German beginnings of psychiatry.

Apparently, David Rockefeller and his family was the name that came out of Hubbard's Filing System from Hell. Using this system, it is not too difficult to imagine that someone as influential as the Rockefeller family would be associated with many of the perceived enemies of Scientology - government, police, media, mental health professionals, drug firms, etc.

Rather than admit that his methods are flawed, Hubbard wants this "Who"'s head on a pike.

: Special attention is drawn to the last sentence in the quote as it confirms current strategic planning.

: : "It is almost inconceivable that human beings should be capable of the cold decision to exterminate, by a sort of metaphysical death sentence, millions of their fellow men without distinction of age or sex. In Poland, Lithuania and Russia the nazis collected the Jews into a number of ghettos, into which they also crowded Jews no longer living there and Jews brought in from other areas. Each ghetto formed a closed Jewish world, an isolated entity from both the human and the economic points of view. This might have been the initiation of a plan of total segregation, but in fact it was only one phase in a monstrous scheme.

: "In two speeches early in 1942 Hitler announced that the Jews would be annihilated. Technical 'trials' in the USSR had proved the 'inadequacy' of existing methods - mass shootings, cremation of the bodies in furnaces and mobile gas chambers. But the German chemists now had a 'quick and clean' solution they had produced a deadly gas named Zyklon B which, after encouraging trials, the 'specialists' considered full of promise.

: : "The method adopted was to construct gas chambers camouflaged as shower baths in certain camps in Poland - the main one was at Birkenau; to these were attached giant crematoria in which the bodies were burnt. The number of Jews rounded up all over Europe and carted to the 'death camps' is estimated at six million. At least as many others fell victim to the maltreatment meted out to them in the ghettos, the diseases which raged there and German action in suppressing revolts such as that in Warsaw.

: "The death of the Jews was in no way necessary to ensure the victory of nazi Germany; this hideous crime was entirely gratuitous. Its gigantic proportions were only realized after the war, through the Polish Resistance had managed to contact certain deportees and pass information to its government in London. The warnings and threats issuing from the BBC made no difference to the murderers' determination. With hindsight, however, it is clear that in the eyes of European Resistance this massacre more than anything else legitimised, indeed sanctified, their action."


Smart Drugs, Stupid People

©1992 by R. F. Histophoeles

Are smart drugs going to be made illegal? Are these promising substances going to be the next target in the War on drugs? Or are they the primary target?

Fact: Drugs are available that improve memory, increase I.Q., enhance creativity and reverse the effects of aging.

Fact: Certain of these drugs are already illegal. LSD has been shown to increase I.Q. by an average of ten points after only six months of use. Marijuana has been used by artists and writers for thousands of years to enhance creativity.

Fact: The Conspiracy wants a stupid, aging population. If people were smart, they would be more difficult to rule and oppress. This is why the government has ruined our school systems. This is why it is still legal and actually encouraged to use lead in plumbing. This why fluoride is being pumped into our water supply and why aluminum hasn't been banned. A senile population is easy to control.

Fact: Anti-aging drugs have been suppressed. Imagine the population explosion if everyone could live twice as long. Truth is, there are drugs that can extend the human lifespan to 400 years or more. How could we feed that many people?

Fact: The most dangerous, harmful drugs are perfectly legal. Only the harmless, helpful ones are banned. More people died last year from aspirin poisoning than have died in the last twenty years from LSD and pot combined. Tobacco and alcohol are notoriously bad, causing far more death than cocaine, crack and heroin.

The pattern is frighteningly clear. The question is, do we have enough of our minds left to recognize the enemy we face, or enough will power to do anything about it? Are we already a bunch of mindless zombies, caught up in a manufactured consensus reality, doomed to lives of intellectual poverty, victims of mass thought control? Is it too late to wake up and buy our country back from our foreign masters, before we are all wage slaving automatons, property of the Conspiracy, doomed to live of brain numbing mediocrity?



In Africa. Mauritania is a primitive backward country in Africa, typical of many in this savage black continent. It sits on the southern frontier of the Sahara desert, a region called the Sabel. Before 1968 approximately 65 percent of its million people were nomads, and its capital of Nouakchott had a population of 12,300.

In 1968 a drought struck Mauritania and the Sabel region, an occurrence that comes in repeated cycles. As many as 250,000 people and millions of animals died over the next six years. The number of nomads decreased from 65% to 36% with hordes of starving skeletons flocking into the capital, Nouakchott, swelling its population today (1979) to about 135,000.

Subsidized Mud People. The people are tired, hungry, dirty and diseased. Some aid stations have been set up by (guess who?) some of the charitable White countries, trying to render medical aid and food in a hopeless situation. Are they really doing any good or are they merely prolonging and proliferating the misery? The answer is the latter — expanding and proliferating misery.

Disaster to the Land. In the meantime what is happening to the land? Whereas the northern part of Mauritania has always been more or less desert, now the southern part is rapidly becoming a desert also. During 1950 when the area had good rains, the livestock herds were rapidly being overexpanded. This, thanks to the help of the charitable United States and other White Countries, who were bent on modernizing these nomad savages. Not only did the livestock herds grow but the people rapidly multiplied, again thanks to White medical aid, food and other charity. The short-sighted natives indiscriminately cut down trees by the millions for firewood until there were few left. Their too numerous livestock overgrazed the pastures. Now there is neither grass nor trees in an area that previously could produce a good supply of food, had it been properly managed. In fact, had it been left alone in its nomadic state, it would have been far better off, since the wandering nomads from time immemorial kept their herds limited in size, and kept them moving so that the grass and trees had ample time to recover.

Hunger, Disease, Ruined Land. Now the area is racked with hunger, disease, scrawny starving cattle and people, and the land is ruined for centuries. Desertification has taken over.

Upper Volta. Another black country in the Sabel area is Upper Volta. Its "capital" is Quagadougou, and it devours firewood at an unprecedented rate. A relentless stream of bicycles and carts stream into the capital loaded with firewood scoured from the surrounding countryside twenty or thirty miles away.

White Man Financed Wells. Only a generation ago the Upper Volta area too was inhabited by nomads and their moving herds, which left the land in a fairly stable condition. Then in the 1950s some White aid organizations (mostly from the U.S.) thought it would be so kind and wonderful to aid these poor backward peoples by drilling wells for them. (I personally remember receiving a number of such letters soliciting money to help drill wells in Upper Volta. How crazy! I thought, as I tossed them in the waste basket.) Nevertheless, even without my support, numerous wells were drilled with the White Man's money. Whereas the nomads and their herds previously kept on the move and gave the grasses time to recover, now they lingered at the well site, and overgrazed the land. They, too, overbuilt their herds during the "good rains" of the 1950s. The nomad population as in Mauritania has shrunk with the drought. Hunger and starvation is rampant and the starving population is crowding into the capital of Quagadougou, cutting down what trees remain in the countryside and hoping for more aid from the United States, and that Allah will take care of them.

Back to Desert. In the meantime, the formerly life-sustaining land is devastated and ruined. The desert is moving in, wells, Allah, and all.

To Asia. We now move to the Asian continent and the country of India. The Great Indian Desert has been called the "overcrowded desert," and nowhere do so many people subsist so miserably on such inhospitable land, relying on an unreliable monsoon. Historically, the rigors of the desert made this one of the highest mortality areas in the world. But, again, U.S. technical aid to the rescue! The high death rate has dropped sharply, but the high birth rate persists, crowding more and more people on less and less productive land.

Superstition, High Birth Rate. We are going to look at a small locality in this area called Rajasthan. The combined pressure of a high birthrate and low mortality rate have put severe pressures on its marginal resources. The religious beliefs and superstitions of its people further imposes a severe handicap on its farming productivity. Besides believing cows are holy, they have a superstitious resistance to killing any animal, even rodents.

Gerbils. Now this area, as so much of India, is severely overrun with a rodent known as the Indian desert gerbil, and the gerbils have been increasing even faster than the people of Rajasthan. The mud fences the men build to keep goats from their fields become perfect rodent hotels, and the seed that farmers spread on the fields is breakfast in bed for the gerbils. In the rangelands, which now average about 200 gerbils per acre, six gerbils will eat as much as one sheep. Two hundred gerbils will therefore eat approximately as much grass as 34 sheep. With a stupid situation like this, with an exploding people and gerbil population, what possible solution can there be?

Back to Desert. But let's get back to the land. In fields scourged with gerbil burrows, these rodents persistently keep flicking sand from their burrows, excavating and exposing moist soil. This cools their burrows and reduces their water needs. That habit can expose more than 100,000 kilograms (the weight of a hundred compact cars) of soil per square kilometer each day. Most of this sand ends up in new dunes in an area that ignorance, overcrowding, over-straining is rapidly driving into useless desert land. Another large area is rushing headlong into desertification, and with it hunger and starvation.

Australia. We could go on citing local situations similar to the above all over the world, some including bad destructive farming practices even in the United States. In Australia, the rabbit introduced from Europe in 1859, has multiplied like the plague. (Under ideal conditions it has been calculated one pair of rabbits can become 13,718,000 in three years.) Overgrazing by sheep along with the rabbit plague are speeding up the desertification of that continent which was at best, desert or semi-desert to start with, except along narrow coastal regions.

Elsewhere. In southern Chile where there is ample rain the land has been denuded of trees. The topsoil is washing into the ocean. The land is desertifying. The rich San Joaquin valley of California has been mining its underground water for a hundred years. With wells now reaching down more than 2000 feet they are reaching the end of the line. In the Imperial Valley much of that fertile land is becoming poisoned with saltification from the irrigation water of the Colorado river. and will become useless unless different methods are employed. In Arizona, which has experienced a population boom beyond its ability to support, the present short-sighted policy is dropping its water table sharply in its aquifers. Trying to supply water for an expanded agriculture and a massive spread of residential developments, one scientist warned that Arizona is now consuming its children's water supply.

And so the desertification process marches on at an ever-increasing rate. As we said in the beginning of this chapter, an area the size of Maine becomes added to the deserts of the world each year.


FROM:  Illness, Disease, Genocide, and Depopulation

Who is making you and me sick? What’s behind the astonishing news of Mad Cow disease, Ebola viruses, AIDS-HIV, Staph infection, hoof and mouth disease, anthrax and others? Is there a secret United Nations program to depopulate the Earth? Who is behind the genocidal campaign to wipe out entire populations in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Africa, and Latin America? Who is behind the Persian Gulf illness? What are in the chemtrails now seen over our skies in the U.S.A.? has the resources you need to unravel the health and disease conspiracy and protect yourself and your loved ones from hidden dangers!


Holocaust Dwarfs Holocaust

In a gut-wrenching report on abortions the Washington Post reveals that twenty-two percent of the world's pregnancies end in abortion every year. Citing the Alan Guttmacher Institute, partially funded by Planned Parenthood as proof, the report states that "thirty-eight percent of the estimated 210 million pregnancies that occur each year are unintentional and 22 percent end in abortion. . .." [1] The Guttmacher Institute states that the abortion rate in the U.S. is higher than the rest of the world at twenty-three percent. By using these figures the worldwide abortion rate exceeds 46,200,000 each year. With figures like these the glib remark by an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) panel member that, "yes people are a cancer on the Earth..." appears to be the mind-set for eradicating "cancer."

Abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and neonaticide are tools used to control population growth while they are masked with the terms of humanitarian benevolence. The grossest deceit and foulest tortures are considered altruistic. Nations who do not bow to these genocidal pressures are targeted as undemocratic and subjected to severe penalties. Three primary institutions that hide their activities under a benevolent, caring front are the United Nations Family Planning Agency (UNFPA), International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) and the World Health Organization (WHO).


The Maternal and Infant Health Care Law (MIHCL) in China prior to 1986, "enforced certain eugenic measures by requiring the abortion of defective fetuses and the sterilization of certain categories of people, including those suffering from certain forms of mental illness, retardation and communicable or hereditary diseases.... Under various provincial regulations, hundreds of thousands have been sterilized.... Under this law, people with serious hereditary diseases, 'legal contagious diseases,' or 'relative mental disorders' continue to be prevented from bearing children." What brings this program, heartily endorsed by UNFPA, to our doorstep is the U.S.'s involvement. We helped to fund it to the tune of 34 million dollars. Population Research Institute (PRI) charges, "Take, for example, the publication Training Family Planning Counselors in China, jointly published by UNFPA, the Chinese government's State Family Planning Commission, and the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), which the U.S. government currently funds to the tune of $34 million." [4,5] The women are motivated, but it is a forced motivation. Those disobedient to the law are physically tortured and/or financially ruined.

Ted Turner, who contributed a billion dollars to further U.N. activities, may have understood more of the inner workings of UNFPA than most when he said that the current population of five billion human beings needs to be cut back to no more than "250 million to 350 million people." Bill Muelhenberg of The New Australian commenting of this aspect shrewdly asks, "Of course one has to ask, How will this be achieved? Will Turner and wife Jane Fonda lead the way?" [6] The inference from this tongue-in-cheek statement implies that those who see overpopulation as a problem and want to reduce it should start with self-reduction.



The huge projected growth of third world populations is likely to keep wages in these countries abysmally low for the foreseeable future. This population explosion has in fact created a worldwide worker glut, which shows up most dramatically in the towering rates of unemployment recorded in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In pre-crisis Indonesia, for example, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta pegged the real un- and underemployment rate at 40 percent. In China, economists feel comfortable openly telling Western reporters that urban jobless rates are nearing 20 percent.

Nor should these figures be surprising. When the supply of any product or economic input outstrips demand, the price will fall, all else being equal. And indeed, additional proof of a buyers' market in third world labor comes from wage figures in these countries. From China to Indonesia to Mexico, inflation-adjusted wages in most of the developing world were falling for much of the 1990s. And where they were rising, e.g., in Korea, they helped created enormous and nearly fatal competitive disadvantages, as demonstrated by the financial crisis that engulfed so many of these countries starting in 1997.

From the standpoint of promoting U.S. exports, the absurd extreme of U.S. trade policy came in the late 1990s, when the Clinton administration began pushing hard for trade liberalization agreements with sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean Basin countries, and Vietnam. Yet when President Clinton began touting the need for a sub-Saharan Africa deal, only four of the region's 35 potentially eligible countries had per capita incomes of greater than $800. Fifteen had per capita incomes of less than $300.

Former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky depicted Vietnam in 1999 as a country with "the potential to develop into a rapidly growing economy with significant demand for our products." What she did not mention was that, when she made this claim, Vietnam had only enough hard currency in its treasury to pay for nine weeks of imports from anywhere.

The picture has been just as mysterious for larger, ostensibly more promising economies like Mexico and China. During his landmark debate with Ross Perot over NAFTA in 1993, Vice President Gore gushed over the Mexican consumers allegedly voracious hunger for American made products. But at the time, Mexico's economy was only three percent as large as the U.S. economy. In addition, although Mexico's economy crashed in 1994, right after NAFTA's ratification, U.S. exports to Mexico remained relatively robust. How could this be given the sharp drop in the peso's value, and therefore in the purchasing power of the typical Mexican?

The answer is that NAFTA is primarily an investment treaty that is designed mainly to shift certain types of American production to Mexico. Most U.S. exports to Mexico have not been consumed by the Mexican economy. Rather, they have consisted mainly of industrial inputs of various kinds that are sent to these new factories, turned into finished goods, and sent right back to the United States.

China has been touted as a huge export market for American producers as well. But its booming economy of the 1990s never accounted for more than 2.1 percent of U.S. goods exports during the decade. The main reason? Wages in China along with private consumption remain low even by third world standards. And numerous studies, including one published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, make clear that, as with Mexico, most Chinese imports consist of inputs that are turned into exports.

The Chinese Connection

From 1994 to 2000, U.S. total goods exports to China rose by 74.9 percent, and manufactures exports rose by 71.7 percent. But the value of total U.S. total direct investment in China surged nearly 275 percent during this period, and the value of manufacturing investment shot up by more than 466 percent. Not surprisingly, U.S. total goods imports and manufactures from China over these years each rose by 158 percent ? more than twice as fast as U.S. export growth.

The supremacy of investment considerations in U.S.-China trade can also be gleaned from what U.S. multinationals themselves say about their economic dealings with China and their priorities vis-a-vis the People's Republic. A study of the websites of more than forty leading U.S. multinational companies I published last spring revealed that most of the major U.S. firms engaged economically with China are thinking primarily of investing and producing in China, not exporting from the United States to China.

Some of these companies have even publicly stated their intention to help China replace imports (from anywhere in the world, including the United States), with domestic production. Kodak, for example, reports that its manufacturing operations in China support Beijing's determination to "create professional enterprises which could displace imports and boost tax revenues." According to Westinghouse, "By using Westinghouse technology and domestic manufacturing sites, China will greatly reduce its need to import power-generating equipment." Similarly, companies like Compaq, Motorola, and Procter & Gamble are all on record pledging to raise the Chinese content of their products.

In fact, in September, 1999, Kodak's chief of China operations made crystal clear how the company views the roles played by exports from the United States and investments in China: "We believe that viewing emerging markets only as export opportunities is the wrong strategy....In a market such as China, where the value of business is expected to grow rapidly, local manufacturing is simply a better business model." Just three months earlier, testifying to the House Ways and Means Committee on China's WTO application, Kodak CEO George Fisher contended that "Kodak factories in China will be important customers for Kodak exports made in the United States."



We shall examine here the alliance of the Bush family with three other families: Farish, Draper and Gray.

The private associations among these families have led to the President's relationship to his closest, most confidential advisers. These alliances were forged in the earlier Hitler project and its immediate aftermath. Understanding them will help us to explain George Bush's obsession with the supposed overpopulation of the world's non-Anglo-Saxons, and the dangerous means he has adopted to deal with this `` problem. ''

On March 25, 1942, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold announced that William Stamps Farish (grandfather of the President's money manager) had pled `` no contest '' to charges of criminal conspiracy with the Nazis. Farish was the principal manager of a worldwide cartel between Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey and the I.G. Farben concern. The merged enterprise had opened the Auschwitz slave labor camp on June 14, 1940, to produce artificial rubber and gasoline from coal. The Hitler government supplied political opponents and Jews as the slaves, who were worked to near death and then murdered.

After pleading `` no contest '' to charges of criminal conspiracy with the Nazis, William Stamps Farish was fined $5,000. (Similar fines were levied against Standard Oil--$5,000 each for the parent company and for several subsidiaries.) This of course did not interfere with the millions of dollars that Farish had acquired in conjunction with Hitler's New Order, as a large stockholder, chairman and president of Standard Oil. All the government sought was the use of patents which his company had given to the Nazis--the Auschwitz patents--but had withheld from the U.S. military and industry.

Will Farish at 25 years old was a personal aide to Zapata chairman George Bush in Bush's unsuccessful 1964 campaign for Senate. Will Farish used `` that Auschwitz money '' to back George Bush financially, investing in Zapata. When Bush was elected to Congress in 1966, Farish joined the Zapata board.@s2@s1

When George Bush became U.S. Vice President in 1980, the Farish and Bush family fortunes were again completely, secretly commingled. As we shall see, the old projects were now being revived on a breathtaking scale

The Nazi regime surrendered in May 1945. In July 1945, General Draper was called to Europe by the American military government authorities in Germany. Draper was appointed head of the Economics Division of the U.S. Control Commission. He was assigned to take apart the Nazi corporate cartels. There is an astonishing but perfectly logical rationale to this--Draper knew a lot about the subject! General Draper, who had spent about 15 years financing and managing the dirtiest of the Nazi enterprises, was now authorized to decide who was exposed, who lost and who kept his business, and in practical effect, who was prosecuted for war crimes.@s2@s9

Draper and his colleagues demanded that Germany and the world accept the collective guilt of the German people as the explanation for the rise of Hitler's New Order, and the Nazi war crimes.

After several years of government service (often working directly for Averell Harriman in the North Atlantic Alliance), General Draper was appointed in 1958 chairman of a committee which was to advise President Dwight Eisenhower on the proper course for U.S. military aid to other countries. At that time, Prescott Bush was a U.S. Senator from Connecticut, a confidential friend and golf partner with National Security Director Gordon Gray, and an important golf partner with Dwight Eisenhower as well. Prescott's old lawyer from the Nazi days, John Foster Dulles, was Secretary of State, and his brother Allen Dulles, formerly of the Schroder bank, was head of the CIA.

This friendly environment emboldened General Draper to pull off a stunt with his military aid advisory committee. He changed the subject under study. The following year the Draper committee recommended that the U.S. government react to the supposed threat of the `` population explosion '' by formulating plans to depopulate the poorer countries. The growth of the world's non-white population, he proposed, should be regarded as dangerous to the national security of the United States!@s3@s1 President Eisenhower rejected the recommendation. But in the next decade, General Draper founded the `` Population Crisis Committee '' and the `` Draper Fund, '' joining with the Rockefeller and Du Pont families to promote eugenics as `` population control. '' The administration of President Lyndon Johnson, advised by General Draper on the subject, began financing birth control in the tropical countries through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

General Draper was George Bush's guru on the population question.@s3@s2 But there was also Draper's money--from that uniquely horrible source--and Draper's connections on Wall Street and abroad. Draper's son and heir, William H. Draper III, was co-chairman for finance (chief of fundraising) of the Bush-for-President national campaign organization in 1980. With George Bush in the White House, the younger Draper heads up the depopulation activities of the United Nations throughout the world.

In 1950 and 1951, John Foster Dulles, then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, led John D. Rockefeller III on a series of world tours, focusing on the need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations. In November 1952, Dulles and Rockefeller set up the Population Council, with tens of millions of dollars from the Rockefeller family.

In 1988, the U.S. Agency for International Development signed its latest contract with the old Sterilization League (a.k.a. Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception), committing the U.S. government to spend $80 million over five years.

Having gotten away with sterilizing several hundred North Carolina school children, `` not usually less than eight to ten years old, '' the identical group is now authorized by President Bush to do it to 58 countries in Asia, Africa and Ibero-America. The group modestly claims it has directly sterilized `` only '' two million people, with 87 percent of the bill paid by U.S. taxpayers

According to Manning, Merck along with Germany's leading industrial organization--I.G. Farben (a Rockefeller Standard Oil partner)--  received the money to help actualize Hitler's proclaimed "vision of a thousand-year Third Reich [and] world empire.  This was outlined with clarity in a document call 'Neuordunung,' or 'New Order,' that was accompanied by a letter of transmittal to the [Bormann led] Ministry of Economics. It declared that a new order for the chemical [and pharmaceutical] industry of the world should supplement Hitler's New Order (pg. 56). . . . 'Bury your treasure,'" Hilter advised Bormann, "for you will need it to begin a Fourth Reich." According to Manning's report, that is precisely what Bormann did "when he set in motion the 'flight capital' scheme August 10, 1944, in Strasbourg. The treasure, the golden ring, he envisioned for the new Germany was the sophisticated distribution of national and corporate assets to  safe havens . . ." such as Merck.]



.....The term "eugenics," deriving from the Greek for "well born," was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton (a cousin of Charles Darwin). The term initially embraced primarily the notion of positive eugenics: the idea that desirable qualities tend to run in families, making it appropriate for the government to encourage intermarriage and breeding by the genetically "fit." It was not until the early twentieth century that the notion of negative eugenics (the prevention of reproduction by those considered genetically inferior) began to emerge.

.....An important aid to the arguments of the early negative eugenicists was the publication in the early 1900s of the family degeneracy studies. The most notable of these were the studies of the Kallikaks and the Jukes--two large families that included many members appearing to be "feebleminded," criminals, or sexually promiscuous. These studies lent credence to the notion (linked to other Progressive Era reforms) that the propagation of traits deemed "undesirable" should be dealt with through aggressive means of social, political, and medical control.

.....One early negative eugenics practice, building on the already well-established tradition of state oversight over marriage, involved placing additional restrictions on who could marry. In 1896, Connecticut became the first state to enact an explicitly eugenically-based marriage restriction, decreeing that "no man and woman either of whom is epileptic, imbecile, or feeble-minded" could "inter-marry, or live together as husband and wife, when the woman is under forty-five years of age." By 1914, more than half of the states had enacted similar laws.

.....A second practice involved the compulsory segregation of the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, and others classified as in some way "defective" from the general population into state mental hospitals and other custodial colonies. By isolating such persons from the rest of society (and the sexes from each other), it was hoped to minimize the hereditary transmission of undesirable traits from one generation to the next. The institutional warehousing of large numbers of "defectives" carried another advantage, by allowing those in power to argue against the need for increased community expenditures for education, health care, and social services.

.....Another practice, reflecting popular beliefs regarding the genetic inferiority of racial minorities and the foreign-born, involved the adoption of strict immigration restrictions. Federal legislation was enacted in 1924 to limit the entry into the United States of non-Nordic immigrants. This helped to ensure that only the "superior stock" already present in the country could retain control of power and prerogatives.

.....The most intrusive of the negative eugenics practices involved the compulsory surgical sterilization of those suffering from "defects" perceived as hereditary. In 1907, Indiana became the first state to enact a compulsory sterilization law, and many other states soon followed suit. The enthusiasm for such laws, initially tempered by concerns over their constitutionality, was given a boost in 1927, when the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case of Buck v. Bell upheld Virginia’s statute. Over the next few decades, more than 60,000 individuals in the United States were sterilized against their will.

.....The attitudes that pervaded the American negative eugenics movement were unquestionably influential in the development of Nazi Germany’s program of racial hygiene, but it was not until some years later that most American eugenicists began to comprehend the connection between their own work and the atrocities of that regime. Today, however, the era of the old-style, state-sponsored programs with explicitly eugenic aims seems clearly to be over; only a few persons remain who would defend (at least publicly) the legitimacy of such programs.

.....But while the era of public eugenics has passed, we may gradually be entering a era in which a new kind of private eugenics is taking hold. Continuing improvements in prenatal testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis are making it increasingly possible for parents to choose or exercise control over some inborn characteristics of their offspring. Gene transfer techniques designed to alter the genetic makeup of embryos or fetuses in order to prevent disease or disability are also likely to be perfected, and someday, interventions to enhance the capacities of "normal" individuals will be developed. Eventually, the engineering of children with specific physical and behavioral characteristics and even the intentional diminishment of otherwise "normal" children may become feasible.

.....Some have argued that parents have a near-absolute right to select or shape the characteristics of their offspring as a part of reproductive freedom, so long as such decisions involve no state coercion. While this viewpoint has some surface appeal, prevailing societal attitudes about race, class, and gender, coupled with the tenacity of majoritarian conceptions of "normality," raise serious questions about the extent to which individual decision-making in this area can ever be said to be unfettered. Genetic counseling adheres nominally to a norm of non-directiveness, but whether this goal is ever achievable in practice is a matter of considerable dispute.

.....Given limited and unequal access to health care and social services, parents who learn they are at risk for bearing a child with a genetic disease or disability, and who feel ill-equipped to cope on their own with the extra financial and emotional burdens generally assumed to be associated with raising such a child, may feel they have little choice but to resort to genetic "solutions" when such solutions are offered. This will undoubtedly lead, over time, to increasingly elevated "norms of perfection," and to the birth of fewer and fewer children whose characteristics deviate significantly from those norms. This may concomitantly lead to even greater reductions in the availability of supportive societal resources for those families who do not avail themselves of genetic solutions, and whose members for that reason may not measure up to the new societal standards. The end result is likely to be not all that different from that envisioned by the early eugenicists: What can no longer be accomplished through overt government intervention may be largely achieved by private, indirect means.

.....Current research efforts in the areas of gene sequencing and human genetic variation also raise questions with more subtle eugenic undertones. Studies of the prevalence of genetic mutations predisposing to breast cancer among Ashkenazi Jews have already led to concerns that such research, despite its benefits, may further stigmatize an already marginalized group. Similar concerns will arise as focus turns to other identifiable groups (such as Native Americans and African Americans) and on DNA sequence variations thought to be associated with even more complex traits and disorders (such as alcoholism or antisocial behavior). It is essential to ensure that such research does not lead merely to a re-institutionalization of the same race biology that so pervaded the ethos of the early American eugenics movement, and to a facile but wrongheaded belief that disability as well as poverty, criminal conduct, and other social ills can be ameliorated through genetic solutions alone.

Jean McEwen, J.D., PhD, is an Associate Professor at Boston College Law School and an Adjunct Lecturer at New England School of Law. She was formerly with the Division of Social Science, Ethics, and Law at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center, where she did research on ethical and legal issues in genetic technology. home

Eugenics: An Antidemocratic Policy

An elitist, mean spirited, racist policy called eugenics is being advanced in secret by organised societies (1) whose current membership consists mainly of intellectuals, scientists and doctors. The work of these societies is financed by great fortunes, such as that of the Rockefellers, working through front groups, such as the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

This is dangerous because eugenics is antidemocratic. Bertrand Russell, a supporter of eugenics, said of it:

"The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal"(2)

The framers of the American Constitution were aware of eugenics, which existed under other names throughout the Eighteenth century, and they rejected it for the honour of the human race. In the Federalist Papers we find Hamilton saying:

"Unhappily ... Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has in different degrees extended her dominion over ... all. Africa, Asia and America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the mistress of the world, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have in direct terms attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America - that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere. Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the European. It belongs to us to vindicate the honour of the human race and to teach that assuming brother moderation."

In 1930 John D. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller Jr. were members of the American Eugenics Society. Furthermore, in the Twenties Raymond Fosdick, an important official of the Rockefeller Foundation, was a member of the American Eugenics Society Advisory council. In this period the Rockefeller Foundation gave money to build quarters for Ernst Rudin, the man who later wrote Hitler's 1933 Sterilization Law.(6) As co-founder with Alfred Ploetz of the German Eugenics Society, Rudin claimed credit as the inspiration for all Hitler's racial laws, including the Nuremberg laws which made Jews second class citizens in Germany.(7)

We find the names Rockefeller and Harriman, supporting the introduction of abortion and contraception, the means of eugenics. John D. Rockefeller III gave Margaret Sanger money with which to develop a contraceptive. Mrs. E.H Harriman's son was Averill Harriman, Governor of New York in the Fifties. Harriman allowed Robert Moses to follow a policy of letting Harlem deteriorate. (See Robert Moses and the Fall of New York., Robert Caro) It was then possible for the next governor, Nelson Rockefeller, to speak of the dreadful conditions in Harlem and the need for contraception and abortion as a solution for the problems of the people trapped there. Hence, in the Sixties, abortion, a eugenic goal, came to be seen as "progressive" in New York State. In the early Seventies, Nelson Rockefeller signed one of the first state law allowing widespread abortion, and the Rockefeller family gave money for the first legal abortion facility in New York State. In the Eighties, Pamela Harriman, Governor Harriman's English widow, used his money to fund the Democratic Leadership PAC, which helped make support for abortion a requirement for advancement in the Democratic Party.(12) (Ironically, the Harriman money, which was obtained as a consequence of the extinguishing of Indian land titles, was dissipated in Pamela Harman's project to extinguish American rights. This left the surviving Harriman blood relatives, in 1994, at the age of eighty, owners of a trust fund as empty as a treaty promise. Litigation is beginning on a legal situation more tangled than that in Bleak House.

What is Eugenics?

In The Descent of Man, Darwin had predicted that "lesser" races would die out as a result of evolution through natural selection.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now, between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (Descent of Man, Charles Darwin)

Eugenicists define eugenics as:

"all efforts whose goal is the modification of natural selection (the guiding force of evolution) to bring about change in a particular direction within human populations or the human species as a whole."(15)

This means that they still believe that they can and should control "evolution" by altering the ratios of human population groups to each other, or in other words, by increasing the population of the good groups and decreasing the bad. This guided increase and decrease is what is meant by " a particular direction". Furthermore, eugenicists still believe that they know which groups should be increasing and which should be decreasing. That is why they study IQ and the relation of crime or violence to inherited characteristics. All these studies, curiously enough, still show that the world needs white supremacy, though new findings show that, within the context of white supremacy, genetic diversity must be maintained.

In the past, eugenics worked publically and created segregation, apartheid and Nazism out of the unholy mixture of racism amd Darwinism. In the present it works in various disguises. The most important of these disguises is the policy called cryptoeugenics, which consists of working through other groups. In the present, in its crypto-eugenic disguise, eugenics has sponsored abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, contraception, and sex education of the raw kind which leads to teenage pregnancy, abortion and contraception.(16) These are the means of eugenics. In the not too distant future, I predict, we can expect the return of eugenics as a conservation-based racism. Then these means will fit into a program. As in the past, these means will be used to "purify" - probably within "green protectorates".



Future Generations is about humanitarian eugenics. 
Humanitarian eugenics strives to leave a genuine legacy 
of love to future generations: good health, high intelligence, 
and noble character. We advocate measures to improve the innate
quality of humankind which are entirely voluntary. Please be forewarned
that most ideas expressed on this website are "politically incorrect." We aspire
to total honesty, believing that it is the only policy for people with integrity,
and furthermore, that in the long run, honesty is far-and-away the most compassionate
policy. If we ever hope to solve the problems which face our species, it's imperative
that we first look at them objectively, and assess the scientific evidence without
bias. If the truth about genetics and behavior, about eugenics, or about
race, is considered "taboo," and falsehoods are the only socially 
acceptable opinions, then this is truly a sad state of affairs,
but we shouldn't let it deter us.



Researchers at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (or USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick in Frederick MD have reconstructed and modified the H1N1 Spanish Flu virus, making it far more deadly than it ever was back when it was responsible for the 1918-1919 flu pandemic that killed over 20 million worldwide and over 500,000 here in the US. Consider that it could have killed many more, but back then, people couldn't hop on a jet and travel from New York to L.A. in five hours. Now, our ability to travel will increase the spread and will be our downfall.

The flu vaccines contain killed virus and protect the body well against challenge by that particular strain, but work poorly against other strains not included in the inoculation. At some point, the vaccine stockpile will include the more lethal modification of the 1918 H1N1 in its live form. Most people receiving this vaccine will simply be renewing their annual flu shot, and the vaccine will still include the inactivated version of the more benign form of H1N1 (as was included in this year's vaccine). The presence of the milder strain in the inoculum will slow down the progression of the more lethal H1N1 form, so people will become sick more slowly - but they will still eventually die. It will just take a few weeks  longer.

In the meantime, they will be carriers for the lethal form of the virus, passing it on to everyone with whom they make contact. And as people hear that others are dropping dead from the flu, they will flock to get their own vaccination. And the entire population will be more receptive to infection because their lungs will have been pre-conditioned to guarantee it.

If you will remember back to 1968 and '69, the Hong Kong flu, which was influenza A type H3N2, killed over 30,000 people in the U.S. alone. That was a fortuitous learning event for some because it taught them that the flu could still conceivably be used to wipe out a population. But at the same time, it pointed out the need to precondition the populace so that those who might normally be resistant could be rendered susceptible. Hence the development of the vaccine program and the aerial spraying procedures to condition the population. The purpose of the chemicals in the chemtrails is to help the viral envelope fuse with lung cells, permitting easier penetration and infection.

But what about those few individuals who don't succumb to the flu? Probability alone demands that there will be some who survive - pockets of the population that are either not reached or somehow (and this is less likely) are resistant to the lethal H1N1 strain. At this point you must also remember that our military personnel have been immunized against a variety of pathogens, including the anthrax bacillus. 20

For those geographically isolated areas where the flu doesn't do its job, it's a fairly simple matter to lay down anthrax spores and then send in what's left of the military to take care of anyone still breathing. The anthrax spraying will probably come under the guise of a flu protection program to save those still alive after the epidemic. And the military, having been exposed to civilians with the flu, will eagerly await their own flu shots. I should emphasize that this is a last resort scenario. Those orchestrating the plan will not want to use anthrax until all other possibilities are exhausted - this because of the long-term viability of anthrax spores. To scatter them over the countryside would mean the area would be dangerous for use by humans, at least those not vaccinated against the bacteria.

And think about this for a moment. Why do you suppose agencies like Fish and Wildlife are so eager to reintroduce wolves and other species into areas of the country which haven't seen these animals for  generations. It's all part of the plan to restore this land to what the elite envision as its early paradise-like state, with wild animals freely roaming the uninhabited plains and forests. Granted, it will take some time to clean up the place and to maybe destroy a lot of small towns that might otherwise be considered a blight on the landscape. But for the global elite it will be a small price for us to pay for their enjoyment,







1997 statistics



Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League (ABCL) on November 10, 1921 at the First American Birth Control Conference in New York City. She established the ABCL to offer an ambitious program of education, legislative reform, and research that would supersede the work of Mary Ware Dennett's Voluntary Parenthood League, the successor to the National Birth Control League

The first legal birth control clinic in the U.S., the Clinical Research Bureau (CRB), opened in 1923 under the auspices of the ABCL. The clinic provided married women and couples with contraceptive services, including counselling and follow-up visits. Most women were fitted with pessaries or diaphragms to be used with a contraceptive jelly. The clinic kept extensive patient records to be used for research and to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of a doctor-staffed, contraceptive program. The CRB served as the medical arm of the ABCL, conducting research and testing on a variety of contraceptives and medical practices related to reproduction, and responding to queries from women, doctors and other clinics throughout the country. The largest birth control clinic in the country, the CRB served as a model for the establishment of doctor-staffed clinics across the nation.



Between 1950 and 1970 the population of Mexico nearly doubled, growing annually at a rate of 3.2 percent, one of the highest growth rates in the world. Increased fertility occurred at a time of sustained economic growth, increase in urbanization, and mortality decline. The simultaneous increase in population and per capita income ran counter to the belief that economic development leads to a decrease in fertility. The unusual demographic situation came to be known as ‘the Mexican Paradox’. However, by the late 1970’s fertility in Mexico was rapidly on the decline. By 1995 fertility rates for rural Mexico had fallen below 4, and contraceptive use by married women was close to 53%.

In 1973 Government pro-nationalist sponsored family planning programs increased the availability of contraception. Between the years 1976 and 1982 the administration under President Lopez Portillo launched several health programs targeting rural residence, namely the Rural Health Program (SSA) and the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS). During this period over 3,000 rural health clinics, and 73 regional hospitals were constructed to aid regions with less than 2,500 inhabitants.

In the rural programs, SSA and IMSS each emphasized family planning by teaching women the benefits of having a small family, and promoting the use of contraceptives. The most encouraged contraceptive methods were, inter uterary devices (IUD), and female sterilization. These services were provided at no cost to most women, and were encouraged heavily shortly after the woman had just given birth. Hospitals and clinics were assigned monthly targets for implementing the above methods of contraception. To elevate the fear that 90 to 93% of the surveyed patients had of such methods, doctors and nurses pointed to other members of the community that were seemingly having success with these methods of birth control.

Between 1975 and 1980 average fertility in Mexico dropped from 6.0% to 4.5%. The prevalence of birth control use in rural areas increased from 14% in 1976 to 27% in 1981 and 33% in 1987. The figures suggest that family planning programs were responsible for lifting Mexico from ‘natural fertility’ environment where social and economic factors determine the number of children, to one where couples limit their number of children by using pre-modern and/or modern methods of contraception. However, an empirical study conducted by Chen, Hicks, Johnson and Rodreguez found that fertility rates were already on the decline when the government implemented family planning polices. The increased standard of living in Mexico was discovered to be more responsible for the decrease in population growth rates than the heavy-handed methods of birth control, encouraged by the government.

The study uses an estimated three-equation simultaneous model to estimate contraceptive use, and the number of children born. The number of desired children is estimated to be a function of socioeconomic variables including: region of residence, size of population of residence, labor force status of the wife before marriage, occupation of the husband during marriage, education of the wife and education of the husband, and a proxy variable for child quality of life (VAC). The VAC variable is assigned a value of one if the child receives necessary vaccinations shortly after birth. Researchers were unclear as what signs should be assigned to different regions of residence, but accumulated evidence suggests that in urbanized areas desired fertility should be less.

The supply equation is the number of children born. It is based on intermediate variables, specifically, duration of marriage, the first birth interval, the second birth interval, a fecundity indicator, length of breast feeding, pregnancy wastage or spontaneous abortion, child mortality, and use of contraception. The choice equation for contraception usage includes two critical variables: (1) motivation (the difference between the potential number of children born, and the number of children actually born) (2) the number of contraceptive methods the female could name in the survey without being prompted. Socioeconomic variables in the choice equation include, male and female education, region, urbanization, occupation of the male and work status of the female before marriage, and two proxies that indicate the availability of contraceptives. The proxies are VAC, and PRE-NAT (did the mother receive prenatal care prior to the birth of her last child).

This case study was based on a survey conducted in Mexico in 1976. Of the 7,310 surveyed, 959 the women between the ages of 35-44 whom had two or more children and had been married only once were appropriate for the analysis. Of the population studied, the average number of children these women gave birth to was 7.2. About half of them used some sort of contraception. For those that regulated the number of children they had, the average number of live births was 6.7. Those that did not regulate themselves with pre-modern and/or modern methods of contraception gave 7.6 live births on average. 89% of the regulators could mention at least one method of contraception without prompting, compared to 44% for non-regulators. The average level of education for the women was 3.4 years. Regulators had received on average 4.8 years of school, where as non-regulators completed only 2.0. Husbands of regulators received 6.0 years of education versus 2.5 for non-regulators. The regulators were most likely to come from urban regions, and were less likely to have worked, or have husbands that worked in agriculture.

ARTICLE FROM 1997 - population in 1997 was 5..8 billion - in 2002 - it is over 6.3 billion

Global Fertility and Population Scientific American Mar 97


Historically, fertility has varied widely, but beginning in the 19th-century Europe and America, it has generally declined as parents came to favor smaller families. According to the latest United Nations projections, this trend will continue, stabalizing the world population early in the 23rd century at somewhat under 1 1 billion, compared with about 5.8 billion today. The map shows the total fertility rate, which indicates the total number of children the average woman will bear in a lifetime based on the experience of all women in a given year, in this case, 1996. A rate of less than 2.11 children per woman will eventually result in a declining population for a country, assuming no immigration. (The extra 0.1 1 allows for deaths of children before they reach reproductive age.) A dip below this rate does not lead to a declining population until about seven decades or so later, when all those living at the time the replacement level is reached have died. Such a case is illustrated by Japan, which arrived at the replacement level in the 1950s, well before other industrial nations. The Japanese population will probably level off or decline in the second decade of the next century.

At the opposite end is sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region on the globe. The population here may not stabilize until early in the 23rd century, when it could reach over two billion. India could achieve a stationary population of more than 1.5 billion by the late 22nd century, making it more populous than China, which has stringent limitations on reproduction. The populations of Pakistan, Nigeria and Ethiopia could stabilize at more than one third of a billion each, whereas those of Mexico, Vietnam, Iran, Zaire and the Philippines could reach well over 150 million be fore leveling off. Projecting population far into the future naturally involves guesswork, and this applies particularly to the U.S. be cause of uncertainties about the future course of immigration-right now the highest in the world-and the unpredictability of nonwhite and Hispanic fertility, which are currently well above replacement levels. The U.S. could conceivably reach a population of more than half a billion by the 22nd century (U.S. W in graph) or, by lowering fertility and restricting immigration, achieve a population at or below the current level (U.S. "B"). -RodgerDoyle

Over the past 30 years or so, there has been a dramatic decline in world fertility rates, particularly in developing countries. Between 1960 and 1965 women in these countries averaged six births over a lifetime, but 30 years later they averaged only 3.4. In east Asia over the same period, births per woman fell 65 percent and are now below the replacement rate of 2.1 children. In other parts of Asia, births declined by about a third, whereas in Latin America, they have almost halved. In Africa, on the other hand, the drop has been only 10 percent. In the developed countries the number of births per woman declined by about 40 per- cent and are now below replacement level in virtually all these countries, including the U.S. Modern contraceptive methods have played a key role in lowering fertility. Among women of reproductive age who are married (or in non-marital unions), half now depend on such methods as female sterilization (the most popular), male sterilization, hormonal implants such as Norplant, injectibles such as Depo-Provera, intrauterine devices (IUDs), birth-control pills, condoms and diaphragms. The firsmur methods are almost 100 percent effective in preventing conception. Next are IUDS, followed by the pill and the male condom. Diaphragms are among the least effective. Condoms-both the male-and female type-are the only methods currently available that provide some protection against sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS. The percentage of women using modern contraception now stands at 54 percent in Asia (39 percent if China is excluded), 53 percent in Latin America, 30 to 40 percent in the Muslim countries of the Middle East and North Africa, 48 percent in the countries of the southern tip of Africa, but less than 10 percent in that vast region comprising the middle part of Africa. In the developed countries of North America and western Europe, modern methods are used by 65 to 75 percent of women. Usage in the countries of the former Soviet Union averages less than 20 percent because birth-control products are in short supply. Women there have depended heavily on abortion as an acceptable way of limiting family size. The growth in birth-control use and the decline in fertility in developing countries is closely tied to expanding educational opportunities for women. Increased literacy, of course, makes it easier for women to get reliable information on contraception, whereas the demands of education, particularly at the post-secondary level, cause women to delay marriage and childbearing. Sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the highest fertility rates, has the lowest female education levels. Some developing countries, such as China and Cuba, are already below the replacement level of 2.1 children, in large part because of modern birth-control methods. Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Africa, Turkey, Egypt and India should reach this goal within the next decade or so. At the other extreme are nations such as Pakistan and Nigeria, which are unlikely to reach the replacement rate for several decades to come. Few women in these high-fertility countries use modern contraception. Traditional methods of birth control (not included on the map) include the rhythm method, coitus interruptus and prolonged breast-feeding; the last suppresses ovulation. Worldwide, 7 percent of all women of reproductive age who are married (or in nonmarital unions) depend on these practices, which are far less reliable than most current methods. They are widespread in several countries, such as Peru, where the rhythm method is popular, and Turkey, where coitus interruptus is prevalent. -Rodger Doyle


Infanticide, Abortion, Contraception

Infanticide, the killing of newborn babies, was the most universal solution to periodic overpopulation in pre-industrial societies. It was used to control population and, at times, the sex ratio where the sexual division of labor dictated. Some groups practiced infanticide because, in the absence of medical techniques, it was less risky and painful than abortion. Among some Australian tribes and among the Cheyenne and other Northern Plain Indians, infanticide was practiced so the tribe could maintain its mobility. The Pima of Arizona practiced infanticide when a child was born after the death of its father—thereby relieving the mother of the added economic burden (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, Linda Gordon, p.33). When practiced, the decision was almost always made by men, and there is little evidence of male infanticide in any society whereas female infanticide was practiced in Tahiti, Formosa, India, and North Africa. It is significant to note that infanticide was not just a ‘primitive’ practice; Aristotle and Plato recommended it for eugenic reasons. And if infanticide is not acceptable today, it may be (as Gordon suggests) because we have better birth control methods, not because we are morally superior.

Infanticide and abortion were considered criminal practices during the 18th and 19th centuries and their practice is documented in the transcripts of trials and in newspapers. This evidence suggests that both practices were widespread. Three cases of infanticide have been found reported in the Maryland Gazette on one day in 1761. In 1806, the transcript of the trial of Elizabeth Valpy in Boston was published. Elizabeth was an immigrant girl working as a maid for a Dr. Jarvis; she became pregnant by a Black indentured servant, William Hardy. She attempted to abort the pregnancy, but the medicine failed and she later gave birth to a completely white girl; the infant was discovered drowned twenty-three days later. Elizabeth claimed Hardy had killed it; he had taken the infant ostensibly to a wet nurse so Elizabeth could return to work. He was acquitted for lack of evidence and Elizabeth was not brought to trial also for lack of evidence; this case generated great public interest, perhaps because of the race question and because it remained unsolved. Women found guilty of infanticide were usually hung. Infanticide is clearly a desperate method of birth control and was most likely used by unmarried women frightened by the stigma of bearing an illegitimate child or by women forced by poverty.

Women, alone or with the help of older women (though there were male abortionists) have attempted to abort unwanted pregnancies since ancient times. A standard method of inducing abortion (ancient and modern) is the abortifacient or potion. Abortifacients are part of a folk culture of herbal medicine handed down among women for thousands of years. In German folk medicine marjoram, thyme, parsley and lavender in tea form were used. The root of worm fern was used by German and French women and was also prescribed by a Greek physician in the time of Nero; in French it was called the “prostitute root”. Other ancient recipes called for a paste of mashed ants, foam from camels’ mouths, tail hairs of blacktail deer dissolved in bear fat. In modern times, women have been reported to use turpentine, castor oil, tansy tea, quinine water in which a rusty nail has been soaked, horseradish, ginger, epsom salts, ammonia, mustard, gin with iron filings, rosemary, lavender, and opium (Gordon, p.36; Norman Himes, Medical History of Contraception; George Devereux, “A Typological Study of Abortion in 350 Primitive, Ancient, and Pre-Industrial Societies”;)

Aside from internal abortifacients, women have attempted external methods such as severe exercise, heavy lifting, climbing trees, hot baths, jumping and shaking. As late as the 20th Century, Jewish women of the Manhattan Lower East Side attempted to abort by sitting over a pot of steam (or hot stewed onions), a technique described in an 8th Century Sanskrit source.

Women’s diaries and correspondence indicate that abortion was commonplace and accepted in the United States during the 19th century. The majority of women before the 19th century and many in the 19th century did not consider abortion a sin. Until the early part of the century, there were no laws against abortions done in the first few months of pregnancy. Prior to the 19th century, Protestants and Catholics held abortion permissible until ‘quickening’—the moment the fetus was believed to gain life.

In the 1870’s, the New York Times estimated there were 200 full time abortionists in New York City and abortion safety was generally quite high. Today, as likely then, more women die in childbirth than during abortions. The most dangerous abortions were not those done mechanically by abortionists but those attempted with internal medicines which caused abortion by a general harsh treatment of the entire body (Gordon, p.53). During the 1800’s, newspaper ads were plentiful:


It is foretold that during the End-Times two-thirds of the six billion plus people on earth will die and Christ will return for the remaining one third. Some people believe in a Pre-tribulation rapture; others in a Post-tribulation rapture.  Even people who believe in UFOs and aliens think they will be removed from the earth so they don't have to go through the tribulation and apocalypse.

Here are five belief systems about the rapture:

1. Amillennialists believe that God's promises regarding the end times are figurative and will not be literally fulfilled, particularly the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ on the earth.

2. Pre-millennialists believe that Jesus Christ will return to the earth prior to His literal reign on the earth for 1000 years. Three groups of pre-millennialists include the following:

3. Post-tribulationists believe that the rapture will not occur until the end of the seven year tribulation, just prior to the beginning of the millennial kingdom.

4. Mid-tribulationists believe that the rapture will occur three and one half years into the tribulation, at beginning of the three and one half year great tribulation.

5. Pre-tribulationists believe that the rapture will occur prior to the seven year tribulation, but not necessarily immediately before the tribulation.

Reasons for and against these five beliefs:

Whether you believe in any one of the above theories, or believe in none, people need to be prepared for living on the earth with what is left after the big disasters that are certain to come. Mankind is again close to war. It may occur within days, if not mere weeks. People are going to die no matter how short the war is, and it seems certain that mankind is going to be sprayed with any number of chemicals or biologicals. Perhaps only the soldiers will be sprayed, but terrorists may want retaliation and attack innocent people in the U.S. or Israel or European countries.  There is no real way to prepare all the people for this kind of terrorism. Many people might die from this. Another threat is nuclear radiation. One can hope and pray that the armies don't use such things as nuclear bombs, but terrorists are threatening to use 'dirty' bombs which also contain radiation. It will be terrible if that occurs.

But is rapture or ascension for real?  With death, it is certain, but will people ascend or be raptured while still in their physical bodies?  There is no  proof of that. The catching up of all Christians into the clouds that Paul mentions in verse 17 of Thessalonians, is the event that is commonly referred to as "the rapture". The word "rapture" itself never occurs in the Bible, but since the New Testament was written in Greek, neither does any other English word. So whether you call it the rapture, the catching away, or the great snatch, the message is still the same.

There are only 5 places in the New Testament where the term "last days" shows up (Acts 2:17, 2 Tim. 3:1, Hebrews 1:2, James 5:3, 2 Peter 3:3).

We also have these verses: Christ will return to take away His Church, all believers (Christians) who were not martyred. This will happen "at the last trump" or when the last trumpet sounds or when the living and "the dead in Christ" will be resurrected, "in the twinkle of an eye.." This event has been labeled the Rapture of the Church (I Thessalonians 4:15-17, and I Corinthians 15:51-52)

List of countries by Muslim population

World map of Muslim population by percentage

This is a list of countries ordered by the population of Muslims. Islam is the world's second largest religion after Christianity, according to a 2009 demographic study there are 1.57 billion adherents, comprising 23% of the world population.[1]

Islam is the predominant religion in the Middle East, in northern half of Africa[2][3] and in some parts of Asia.[4] Large communities are also found inChina, Eastern Europe and Russia. There are also large Muslim immigrant communities in other parts of the world, such as Western Europe, where Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity.[5] About 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries,[6] 30% in the Indian subcontinent and 15.6% in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country by population.[7] Approximately 50 of countries are Muslim-majority.[1] Around 62% of the world's Muslims live in Asia, with over 683 million adherents in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan.[1][8] According to U.S. government figures, in 2006 there were 20 million Muslims in China.[9] In the Middle East, the non-Arab countries of Turkey and Iran are the largest Muslim-majority countries; in Africa, Egypt and Nigeria have the most populous Muslim communities.[8]

A latest demographic study was conducted by the Pew Research Center in October 2009, where it released statistics of all countries and terrortories in the world providing approximate figures of the Muslim population.[1] The study found there are 1.57 billion Muslims around the world (1 in 4 people). The portrait of the Muslim world showed there are more Muslims in Germany than in Lebanon or, China more thanSyria.[10] The data was analyzed from census and government data and estimated for 2009. Predominantly Muslims are Sunni (87-90%) and 10-13% are Shi'a.[11] The highest number of Muslims in the world were found in Asia-Pacific (61.9%), with only 20.1% in the Arab world, in Sub-Saharan Africa 15.3% and the rest of the population in Europe and the Americas.[12]


Figures indicated below are based on the demographic study by the Pew Research Center report of Mapping the Global Muslim Population, as of 8 October, 2009.[1]

Country/Region  ↓ Muslim population
(2009 est.)
Muslim percentage (%) of total
Percentage (%) of World Muslim
Afghanistan 28,072,000 99.7 1.8
Albania 2,522,000 79.9 0.2
Algeria 34,199,000 98.0 2.2
Angola 190,000 1 0
Argentina 784,000 1.9 0.1
Armenia 1,000 0 0
Australia 365,000 1.7 0
Austria 353,000 4.2 0
Azerbaijan 8,765,000 99.2 0.6
Bahrain 642,000 81.2 0
Bangladesh 145,312,000 89.6 9.3
Belarus 19,000 0 0
Belgium 281,000 3 0
Belize 1,400 0.1 0
Benin 2,182,000 24.4 0.1
Bhutan 7,000 1.0 0
Bolivia 2,000 0 0
Bosnia-Herzegovina 1,522,000 40 0.1
Botswana 8,000 0.4 0
Brazil 191,000 0.1 0
Brunei 269,000 67.2 0
Bulgaria 920,000 12.2 0.1
Burkina Faso 9,292,000 59.0 0.6
Burundi 180,000 2 0
Cambodia 236,000 1.6 0
Cameroon 3,498,000 17.9 0.2
Canada 657,000 2.0 0
Central African Republic 395,000 8.9 0
Chad 6,257,000 55.8 0.4
Chile 4,000 0 0
China 21,667,000 1.6 1.4
Colombia 14,000 0 0
Comoros 664,000 98.3 0
Costa Rica - 0 0
Congo 943,000 1.4 0.1
Croatia 18,000 0 0
Cuba 9,000 0.1 0
Cyprus 198,000 22.7 0
Czech Republic 1,000 0 0
Denmark 88,000 2 0
Djibouti 838,000 96.9 0.1
Dominican Republic 2,000 0 0
East Timor 43,000 3.8 0
Ecuador 2,000 0 0
Egypt 78,513,000 94.6 5.0
El Salvador 2,000 0 0
Eritrea 1,854,000 36.5 0.1
Estonia 2,000 0.1 0
Ethiopia 28,063,000 33.9 1.8
Fiji 53,000 6.3 0
Finland 24,000 0.5 0
France 3,554,000 6 0.2
Gabon 140,000 9.5 0.1
Gambia 1,625,000 95 0.1
Georgia 423,000 9.9 0
Germany 4,026,000 5 0.3
Ghana 3,787,000 15.9 0.2
Greece 310,000 3 0
Grenada - 0.3 0
Guatemala 1,000 0 0
Guinea 8,502,000 84.4 0.5
Guinea-Bissau 680,000 42.2 0
Guyana 55,000 7.2 0
Haiti 2,000 0 0
Honduras 11,000 0.1 0
Hungary 24,000 0.2 0
Iceland - 0.1 0
India 160,945,000 13.4 10.3
Indonesia 202,867,000 88.2 12.9
Iran 73,777,000 99.4 4.7
Iraq 30,428,000 99 2
Ireland 22,000 0.5 0
Israel 1,194,000 16.7 0.1
Italy 36,000 0 0
Ivory Coast 7,745,000 36.7 0.5
Jamaica 1,000 0 0
Japan 183,000 0.1 0
Jordan 6,202,000 98.2 0.4
Kazakhstan 8,822,000 56.4 0.6
Kenya 2,793,000 7.0 0.2
Kuwait 2,824,000 95 0.2
Kyrgyzstan 4,734,000 86.3 0.3
Laos 2,000 0 0
Latvia 2,000 0 0
Lebanon 2,504,000 59.3 0.2
Lesotho 1,000 0 0
Liberia 483,000 12.2 0
Libya 6,203,000 96.6 0.4
Lithuania 3,000 0.1 0
Luxembourg 13,000 3 0
Macedonia 680,000 33.3 0
Madagascar 215,000 1.1 0
Malawi 1,955,000 12.8 0.1
Malaysia 16,581,000 60.4 1.1
Maldives 304,000 98.4 0
Mali 12,040,000 92.5 0.8
Mauritania 3,261,000 99.1 0.2
Mauritius 214,000 16.6 0
Mexico 110,000 0 0
Moldova 17,000 0.5 0
Mongolia 133,000 5.0 0
Montenegro 111,000 17.7 0
Morocco 31,993,000 99 2
Mozambique 5,224,000 22.8 0.3
Myanmar 1,889,000 3.8 0.1
Namibia 8,000 0.4 0
Nepal 1,231,000 4.2 0.1
Netherlands 946,000 5.7 0.1
New Caledonia 7,000 2.8 0
New Zealand 37,000 0.9 0
Nicaragua 1,000 0 0
Niger 15,075,000 98.6 1.0
Nigeria 78,056,000 50.4 5.0
North Korea 2,000 0 0
Norway 65,000 1 0
Oman 2,494,000 87.7 0.2
Pakistan 174,082,000 96.3 11.1
Panama 24,000 0.7 0
Papua New Guinea 2,000 0 0
Paraguay 1,000 0 0
Peru 1,000 0 0
Philippines 4,654,000 5.1 0.3
Poland 48,000 0 0
Portugal 15,000 0.1 0
Puerto Rico 1,000 0 0
Qatar 1,092,000 77.5 0.1
Republic of Congo 59,000 1.6 0
Romania 66,000 0.3 0
Russia 16,482,000 11.7 1.0
Rwanda 182,000 1.8 0
Saudi Arabia 24,949,000 97 2
Senegal 12,028,000 96.0 0.8
Serbia 244,000 3.2 0
Seychelles 1,000 1.1 0
Sierra Leone 4,059,000 71.3 0.3
Singapore 706,000 14.9 0
Slovakia - 0 0
Slovakia 49,000 2.4 0
Somalia 8,995,000 98.5 0.6
South Africa 731,000 1.5 0
South Korea 71,000 0.1 0
Spain 650,000 1 0
Sri Lanka 1,711,000 8.5 0.1
Sudan 30,121,000 71.3 1.9
Suriname 83,000 15.9 0
Swaziland 2,000 0.2 0
Sweden 149,000 2 0
Switzerland 323,000 4.3 0
Syria 20,196,000 92.2 1.3
Taiwan 23,000 0 0
Tajikistan 5,848,000 84.1 0.4
Tanzania 13,218,000 30.2 0.8
Thailand 3,930,000 5.8 0.3
Togo 809,000 12.2 0.1
Trinidad and Tobago 78,000 5.8 0
Tunisia 10,216,000 99.5 0.7
Turkey 73,619,000 98 4.7
Turkmenistan 4,757,000 93.1 0.3
Uganda 3,958,000 12.1 0.3
Ukraine 456,000 1.0 0
United Arab Emirates 3,504,000 76.2 0.2
United Kingdom 1,647,000 2.7 0.1
United States 2,454,000 0.8 0.2
Uruguay 1,000 0 0
Uzbekistan 26,469,000 96.3 1.7
Vanuatu - 0 0
Venezuela 94,000 0.3 0
Vietnam 157,000 0.2 0
Western Sahara 510,000 99.4 0
Yemen 23,363,000 99.1 1.5
Zambia 58,000 0.4 0
Zimbabwe 109,000 0.9 0
Asia-Pacific 972,537,000 24.1 61.9
Middle East-North Africa 315,322,000 91.2 20.1
Sub-Saharan Africa 240,632,000 30.1 15.3
Europe 38,112,000 5.2 2.4
Americas 4,596,000 0.5 0.3
World Total 1,571,198,000 22.9 100

 See also

Organisation of the Islamic Conference


  1. ^ a b c d e Miller, Tracy, ed. (October 2009) (PDF), Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, Pew Research Center,, retrieved 2009-10-08
  2. ^ "The Africanization of Missionary Christianity: History and Typology", Steven Kaplan, Journal of Religion in Africa 16 (3) (1986), 165-186. In Africa, Islam and Christianity are growing - and blending. Abraham McLaughlin The Christian Science Monitor, 26 January 2006.
  3. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica. Britannica Book of the Year 2003. Encyclopedia Britannica, (2003) ISBN 9780852299562 p.306
    According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, as of mid-2002, there were 376,453,000 Christians, 329,869,000 Muslims and 98,734,000 people who practiced traditional religions in Africa. Ian S. Markham,(A World Religions Reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.) is cited by Morehouse University as giving the mid 1990s figure of 278,250,800 Muslims in Africa, but still as 40.8% of the total population. These numbers are estimates, and remain a matter of conjecture. See Amadu Jacky Kaba. The spread of Christianity and Islam in Africa: a survey and analysis of the numbers and percentages of Christians, Muslims and those who practice indigenous religions. The Western Journal of Black Studies, Vol 29, Number 2, June 2005. Discusses the estimations of various almanacs and encyclopedium, placing Britannica's estimate as the most agreed figure. Notes the figure presented at the World Christian Encyclopedia, summarized here, as being an outlier. On rates of growth, Islam and Pentecostal Christianity are highest, see: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions, Foreign Policy, May 2007.
  4. ^ Britannica [1], Think Quest [2],[3]
  5. ^ See:
    • Esposito (2004) pp.2,43
    • "Islamic World". Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.
    "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents". Retrieved 2007-01-09.
  6. ^ See:
    • Esposito (2002b), p.21
    • Esposito (2004), pp.2,43
  7. ^ See these figures
  8. ^ a b "Number of Muslim by country". Retrieved 2007-05-30.
  9. ^ "International Religious Freedom Report 2006—China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S. department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
  10. ^ Eric Gorski (2009-10-08) Report: Global Muslim population hits 1.57 billion Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Retrieved on 2009-10-11.
  11. ^ Richard Allen Greene (2009-10-07) Nearly 1 in 4 people worldwide is Muslim, report says CNN. Retrieved on 2009-10-11.
  12. ^ One in four is Muslim, study says BBC. 2009-10-08. Retrieved on 2009-10-11.

 External links



The Great Conspiracy - Who's Stomping on Christian Civilization? 

Man's Inhumanity to Man










DEPOPULATION IS NOT NEW -An Overview of Wampanoag History to 1689
... Massive depopulation. 1635 Colony of Connecticut started. ... 
1662 Alexander accused of conspiracy against the colony and arrested by Major Josiah Winslow. ...




















stuthedude  at  | 

Good, well researched list. One correction that I am aware of is the reference to the first use of concentration camps by the Ottomans shortly before WW1. I don’t know if it was the first but concentration camps were used by the British against the Afrikaaners during the Anglo Boer War (1901).

  1. IrishSteve  at  | 

    Whilst not defending them, they weren’t concentration camps in the sense we think of them today. They were an effort to cut the boars supply lines by removing the farmers and farm that the guerrillas relied on. The fact many died in them was less to do with an attempt at ethnic cleansing and more to do with military incompetence. The British held an inquiry called the Fawcett Commission that criticized the conditions in the camps and lead to improvements that at least cut the death rates. The camps also became public knowledge in the UK causing a widespread revulsion.

  2. i2Shock4SwordB8  at  | 

    Well researched my a$$, Jeff Danelek is extremely uneducated in a topic he knows absolutely nothing about. I suggest you actually doing your homework, with scholarly research, before speaking on topics that you are obviously biased about Mr Danelek. Until I would never consider any of your compositions to hold ANY MERIT WHAT SO EVER on any topics, especially not this one.

    I’ve done my homework & will enlighten you to the truth should you chose to desire to educate yourself on a topic that your ignorance is implied throughout the entire composition. Do enjoy!

    Works Cited
    Alaska, Western Canada and United States Collection. University Libraries of
    Washington Digital Collections. Jul. 2012. Web.
    â??Bands March On As Columbus Day Controversy Continues.â?? Columbus Day
    Controversy. October 1997. 24 February 2006.
    Belasco, Susan et al., The Bedford Anthology of American Literature, Volume
    One: Beginnings to 1865. Pgs. 14-15. Aug. 2007. Print.
    â??Christopher Columbusâ?? The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert
    Appleton Company, 1908. 3 Jul. 2012.
    Danelek, Jeff. Top Ten Most Horrific Genocides In History
    De Las Casas, Bartolome. A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies.1689.
    Afterword Hewson, R. London. pgs. 3-39. 2007. Print.
    Dunn, Oliver, et al., â??The Diario of Christopher Columbusâ?? First Voyage to
    America, 1492-1493. Dunn. Oklahoma Press. 1989. N.p. 2012. Web.
    Declaration of Independence. 4 July, 1776. U.S. National Archives. 2012. Web.
    â??Eugenics.â?? The Free Dictionary of Fairfax. Np. Nd. Web
    Fuson, Robert H. â??The Log of Christopher Columbus.â?? Camden, Maine:
    International Marine Publishing. p. 51-94. 1992. Print.
    â??Genocide.â?? The Free Legal Dictionary of Fairfax. Np. Nd. Web.
    Genocide of Native Americans:
    Johansen, Bruce E., Sterilization of Native American Women. José Barreiro
    (editor-in-chief of NATIVE AMERICAS) September, 1998.
    Lemkin, Raphael. 1944. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation
    Analysis of Government Proposals for Redress. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie
    Endowment for International Peace. Nov. 2003. Web.
    Marino, Gregory â??Columbusâ??s Genocideâ??
    Native American Cultures. n.p., n.d. 2012. Web
    Newcomb, Steve. â??Five Hundred Years of Injustice.â?? Shamanâ??s Drum. Fall 1992,
    p. 18-20.
    Paul, Daniel N., â??Christopher Columbus 1451-1506: Opens the Door to European
    Invasion of the Americas.â?? American Indian Histor-Miâ??Kmaq First Nation: We
    Were Not the Savages. Daniel Paul, n.d. Web. 2 Jul. 20.
    Perdue, Theda. â??The Legacy of Indian Removal.â?? The Journal of Southern
    History 78.1
    Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D., Evolution of Paleolithic Cosmology and Spiritual
    Consciousness, and the Temporal and Frontal Lobes. Journal of Cosmology,
    2011, Vol. 14. Jul. 2012. Web.
    Sanderlin, George. Bartholomew De Las Casas. New York: Random House,
    Verdesio, Gustavo. A Companion to Latin American Literature and Culture.
    Mapping the Pre-Columbian Americas: Indigenous Peoples of the Americas
    and Western Knowledge. Ed. Sara Castro-Klaren. Malden, MA: Blackwell
    Publishing Ltd., 2008. p. 33-48. Print.
    Yewell, John, ed. Confronting Columbus. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland,

    1. Chris  at  | 

      Thank you i2Schock… EXACTLY, ACCURATE MY ASS! Within the first few lines blatant errors. Small pox WAS intentionally given to Native Americans as Gifts of blankets which were purposely infected with the virus… Learn your history!! Shameful mistakes

    2. jayo  at  | 

      ah, come on, what did you expect from an author whose main field of writing is esoterics…

  • Clive  at  | 

    Very informative list. I’ve always researched wars and battles and I’ll admit I have learned a lot from this. Greatly researched and layed out.

  • This List Is Uninformed  at  | 

    China currently have the biggest population, and it was during Mao’s era that a massive population boom occured in China.

    Logic dictates that only stupid brainwashed westerners can believe that Mao attempted a massacar. When clrarly, in Mao’s era, the population of China increased dramatically, as well as the average life expectancy, and the educated populace.

    1. Martin Fierro  at  | 

      Clearly you like Mao. However, he list is still true

      1. The List Is Uninformed  at  | 

        All Chinese people… well, most, understands that it was because of Mao, China manage to do quite good, although there are negative sides (such as taking money from the rich), the positive sides outweighs the negatives.

        For example, my grandfather (on my mother’s side) was tricked off a contract and his land was taken, only to be distributed, however, there was no “killing” and he was not “thrown into pirson”. Thus, when the economy is back up and wealth are being generated, the percentage of lower class is dramatically decreased. Obviously, if you attempt to overthrow him and start another rebellion when Mao have so many supporters and China is already recognised as the sick man of Asia, that is extensively stupid.

        Now if “45 million – 70 million” are killed, how exactly do you think China managed to obtain the largest population in the entire world? Which is four times larger than the population of USA, where no massacars have ever take place, supposedly, a very wealthy country with a very high average life expectancy, adding to the fact that there was a huge wave of immigrations in the 1900′s.

        1. F  at  | 

          Good point. Couldn’t agree more.
          At junior high, my history book tell lots of bad thing about dictator mao. But in geography subject, statical data and graphs shows the increased wealth and life expectacy are a lot better than most of asian country. And everytime I see mao on documentary film, it seems like his people loves him very much.

          1. Stop already...  at  | 

            … are you people above (not Martin Fierro) dense, or just completely indoctrinated? Please, get a clue.

            1. Oh my god  at  | 

              Have you ever actually spoken to a Chinese person about this?

              When they say that 45-70 million people died, they’re not just using the general census. These are town records kept away from the public eye. These are reports from people actually living in specific communes. Many people lost their lives and it was reported in documents and records that many people were ‘punished’ with their lives for stealing just a simple potato or a handful of grain.

              Not only that, many people lost all of their life savings and ended up with nothing. My grandparents lost their entire fortune because of Mao’s policies. Many of my friends have had relatives who’ve lost their lives because of the torture in the hands of red guards, or they’ve committed suicide because it was too much to handle.

              If you go and ask a Chinese person right now, what they think of the policies placed in the Great Leap Forward or the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, they’d tell you how messed up it was. My grand aunt literally said that “everyone there was crazy, and even if you weren’t, you’d have to pretend to be or they’d accuse you of being a traitor or having ‘black’ blood.”

              The people loved him because he projected himself as a god. His cult of personality was so great that if people didn’t own a ‘red book’ of his quotes, they could be killed on the spot.

              So yes, for a while, maybe some of them were richer because they had their own land, but if you ask around, most people would say their condition of life turned for the worse.

              and let me remind you that many of these ‘statistics’ given out by China were falsified. It was common for people to exaggerate what they had. For example, in the Great Leap Forward, each commune was supposed to make a specific quota of goods, but many could not meet it, and they still had to make it seem as if the idea was working or they’d be killed. If you didn’t make it seem as if Mao’s idea was working, there was a probability that you would be persecuted.

              Just keep that in mind.

  • Andrzej Kozanko  at  | 

    You must be kidding with number 8! You call the withdrawal of invader an “Expulsion of Ethnic Germans”? What about holocaust? 6 million people were murdered by these poor ethnic Germans. What kind of journalism is it?!!

    1. seaScorpius  at  | 

      Actualy, most of the ethnic Germans were NOT involved and any that were, were arrested (if men) or their heads shaved (if women) and I hardly believe that ethnic German children should be blamed for this. It was the German/Nazi army that was to blame and they got the punishment of burying all the people they had killed into a mass grave before getting arrested and/or shot.

      The Holocaust is there, yes, but there’s two sides to every story. Just because the Jewish (and others) population suffered greatly, doesn’t mean the ethnic German population didn’t suffer as well. I’ve talked to someone who survived the Nazi concentration camps and even he doesn’t blame the German civilian population for this.

      War isn’t good for anyone as it ruins lives for innocent people on both sides. Remember that.

      1. John Acton  at  | 

        Not “Nazi” but German concentration camps. Nazi were not aliens in Germany. Nor were German soldiers. They were Germans. I observe that the notion of “Nazis” is abused and overused. It leads a public opinion to believe that there were those nasty Nazis and poor Germans, the latter having nothing in common with the former. Nazis were Germans, moreover they were given power in democratic elections, which is a clear indication, that German population did not oppose Hitler’s ideology too strongly.

        1. seaScorpius  at  | 

          Most of German civilians didn’t condone of the concentration camps so it’s generally regarded as a Nazi-controlled concentration camp (despite that being a good piece of logic too). No, the Nazi’s weren’t aliens they were all of German/Austrian blood mainly but even the German population of today don’t want to be associated with them for obvious reasons. Yes, Nazi’s is overused as they weren’t the only facist country/army of that era as there were also Mussolini and King Franco and maybe some others afterwards. Also, due to Hitler wanting to be a dictator he did the smart/stupid thing of forcing the hand. Most people were bullied by Hitler’s right hand man to vote for him and no one could do anything about it. The point I was trying to make is don’t point the finger at the German civilians and say “they deserve it”. That’s really ignorant. Kids can’t vote. Are you saying it’s their fault? They deserve to die? I don’t think so. Don’t be to quick to judge what you don’t know. You weren’t there were you? Remember this: All school history books have some prejudice/propaganda and bias in them.

          1. John Acton  at  | 

            You’ve had some good points. You are definitely right, that man cannot punish children for sins of their fathers. Also the point “You weren’t there were you?” seem to make sense at first glance, but it applies to anyone discussing historical events older then 100 years. I am assuming it applies to you as well. So in longer term it makes no sense.

            I did study some history of pre WWII Germany. It is a longer discussion of why NSDAP has won elections, but people were definitely not forced to give their votes on them. Once NSDAP grabbed the power – then, yes, they started to bully their opponents in Germany.

            I do not stand on a position that Germans are genetically murderous nation. Nor I stand on a position that they were in a large group fooled and bullied by very narrow group of Nazis. First of all, Nazis were not such a narrow group. Secondly, recent researches seem to prove, that reputed as army-of-people-of-honour Wermaht also committed many crimes on civilians and POWs.

            Germans were not expelled because they had German gens. As I said many of them were fleeing themselves, to avoid justice.

            And first of all – level of suffering, level of received cruelty and number of killed people (killed during expulsion, not all Germans killed during WWII) by no mean can be compared with that applied to nations enslaved by Germans.

            Once again – it is not about denial of suffering of German civilians. It about the fact, that substantially, Germans should not be on the list before their victims. And Jews were not the only, and not the biggest victim.

            1. dmb  at  | 

              Ridiculous. Maybe you should research why exactly Hitler went to war. These ethnic Germans, for whom you have no empathy, were being slaughtered in territory once Germany’s, by the NKVD in Poland…which means by Jews.. The number 6 million is a ridiculous overstatement for what happened in the case of the internment of domestic agitators, not all of whom were Jewish. Deaths in the camps mirror the starvation of German citizens that resulted from the bombings toward the end of the war. All Germans were suffering, the interned in the camps suffered more than ever, and typhus spread. That’s what happened, and as soon as some of these huckster ‘survivors’ start dying off we MIGHT get popular recognition of the truth in coming years (although plenty of survivors talk about camp orchestras and cantinas in Buchenwald, a soccer field in Auschwitz, etc.). Nonetheless, all of Europe at the time was terrified of Bolshevism, a Jewish phenomenon. Everyone at the time, including the Pope, Churchill, Hitler, many Jews, YOU NAME HIM, he knew it. They killed millions and millions, in horrible ways, in Russia, Romania, Bavaria, Hungary – all brutal, all Jewish. Shame on you, for swallowing some nonsense and dishonoring the victims of history, in whose name INNOCENT Jews also suffered!

    2. Karol  at  | 

      I agree. Number 8 “Expulsion of Ethinic Germans” should not be here. Although I have different reason on this. Number 8 is just part of 2: “The Stalinist Era in USSR (1929-1953)”. The expulsion of Germans wasn’t just a genocide of Germans, but it was a result of Stalin’s policy to many nations, and was mostly just an expulsion. In that area (and times) many nations were suffering (killing/starvation/bad conditions). There were other nations that suffered even more than Germans from Stalin’s policy, e.g. Ukrainians, Poles, and even Rusians. And some of the actions agains some other groups/nations was “true” genocide (killing by order, in case of German it was mostly starvation/bad conditions/incidental actions of demoralized soldiers). According to the text, half million of 14 milions was dead, which is 3.5% of population. This is clearly less than, for example, man-made famine (Terror-Famine) in Soviet Ukraine in 1932-1933 – the death toll is estimated as between 2 and 8 milion people. Why not put on the list the Ukrainian Terror-Famine instead of the German Expulsion (death tall 2-8 milion vs. 0.5 milion)? They both are the part of Stalinist Era. This should be just “One of biggest Expulsions” (in hard times/bad conditions) – not genocide.

    3. Carl Street  at  | 

      I guess we will FINALLY have to let the German and Japanese people off the hook…

      All my life I have heard about how it was right to hold the German and Japanese people en masse responsible for the atrocities of WWII because they did NOTHING to stop the criminals running their respective states.

      Well, Americans, apparently NOW owe these people a massive apology for our self-righteous moralizing that has lasted for decades.

      For even as we sit here American Military Personnel are performing the VERY acts for which we HANGED German and Japanese Military Personnel — including torture; mass executions; reprisals, show trials kidnapping, assassinations, secret prisons, etc.

      And, the American populace daily cheers for aerial blitzkrieg bombing of civilians much as the “but I was not a Nazi” German population did…

      And what about the sanctimonious carping about how the German people should have known about the Nazi Death Camps???

      How do YOU know that the Guantanamo “detention camp” is NOT an Auschwitz?? Or are you applying a double standard that holds the German people responsible for believing THEIR criminal government; but YOU can be forgiven for believing YOURS??


      Let’s hear those apologies you self-righteous hypocrites – unless you are from the might-makes-right group that REALLY believes the ONLY German and Japanese real war crime was losing the war!

  • John Acton  at  | 

    I think that placing expulsion of Germans on the list is a rather risky decision. First of all, significant amount of Germans were not expelled. It was their decision to flee. And the reason for this flee was obvious. Many Germans wanted to avoid responsibility and justice for all the crimes they committed. Undoubtedly, there were also Germans who were just victims of the fact that the borders between countries has moved. But still, many of Germans actively participated in genocides of other nations (Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Gypsies). Many “innocent” German farmers migrated to countries conquered by Germany to take over conquered farms, animals, equipments and use inhabitants as slaves.
    Germans suffered after the WWII, no one denies that. But they definitely did not suffer as much as the nations, which they enslaved and exterminated. Especially Slavic nations and Jews, which Germans considered animals, not deserving human treatment. Therefore, what has happened to Germans after WWII should find its place on the list of genocides. However it definitely does not deserve to make it in the 1st 10, secondly by no means it should appear before genocides, which Germans applied to other nations.

  • Konrad Kalbarczyk  at  | 

    All is quite fine, except number 8. “Pretty close to genocide”. Hilarious. Why not Texas chainsaw massacre?

  • Fabio  at  | 

    8. Expulsion of Ethnic Germans after World War II (1945)
    Somebody was avoiding history lessons… Dear journalist at first google ‘holocaust’ and then find out why Germans were asked to leave occupied and destroyed by them country.

  • Mark  at  | 

    What about native americans?

    1. Martin Fierro  at  | 

      That is in the Other Note Worthy examples after #1

    2. Christina  at  | 

      Didn’t you read the note at the top? Evidently this is an opinion piece, not a researched piece. The author here doesn’t think the intentional extermination of Native American’s counts, however. There is actual documentation that U.S. soldiers intentionally gave American Indians blankets contaminated with smallpox, in addition to settling warring tribes on the same small reservations with the hopes that they would kill each other off, among other hideous “genocidal” facts. In the opening paragraph the author arbitrarily discounts this information with no proof however.

      I am terrified to ask the author, but were the crusades considered either? While those wonderful, crusading fools didn’t manage to wipe out the entire middle East, they did manage to eliminate the Byzantines completely while they were killing Jews, Byzantines, Christians and Muslims alike. Their goal was to rid the earth of non-Christians and reclaim the Holy Lands. Seems to me that qualifies as genocide via the dictionary definition of the term, and the death tolls at the hands of the Crusades is a lot higher than most on your list…

  • Marek  at  | 

    What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about Indians? hipocrits

    1. 5minutes  at  | 

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not attempts to wipe out the Japanese Race. In fact, one could argue that the reason the bombs were dropped was to save Japanese lives by forcing a quick surrender.

      The Indian Wars also were not attempts to wipe out the Indian race, although there were admittedly some who wanted to do so.

      1. Marek  at  | 

        How many people must die to called it genocide?

        Btw if Indian Wars weren’t genocide and Hiroshima bombing too why #8 appears?

        and #10 WTF? A lot people are saying that Bible is BS but when deaths appears in this book they shout it’s genocide! :/

      2. Marek  at  | 

        The Indian case is much closer to genocide than #8, you can find it even in wikipedia:

        H&N – a lot of people died or suffered serious illness after the explosion

        1. Martin Fierro  at  | 

          oh well if Wikipedia says so…

  • A Pole who cares  at  | 

    The whole top 10 doesn’t look right to me; What about 6 milion of Poles (incl. 3 milions of Polish Jews), who lost their lives as effect of German occupation started in 1939 until 1945?? Sonder Aktion Krakau, Palmiry Forest, Warsaw Uprising alone (200k civilians murdered!) and many more; Poland is now estimated to have lost between 4.9 and 5.7 million citizens at the hands of the Germans. Between 150,000 – 1 million more died at the hands of the Soviets.In total, right about 6 million Polish citizens lost. (just Imagine, proportionally losing 30 million US citizens or ~ 12,000 citizens/a day – wouldn’t you call that a Top Ten genocide?)

    The vast majority were civilians. _The daily average in Polish lives was 2,800_ as the war continued until May 2 1945. Poland’s professional classes suffered higher than average casualties with Doctors (45%), lawyers (57%), University professors (40%), technicians (30%), clergy (18%) and many journalists.

    Doesn’t that qualify to be one of the most horrific atrocities committed to a single nation?!

    Germans suffered mainly as effect of hostilies started by their own government! Please, read some more decent history sources (Timothy Snyder, Norman Davies, Ian Kershaw, Anthony Beevor) before putting anything of that kind on websites risking it being flawed.

    1. A.N.  at  | 

      Well, what about 12 million russian civilians..and 3,5 million russian war prisoners…Killed by nazis

  • R  at  | 

    If the expulsion of Germans is a genocide, so what is this ? (Warsaw in 1945 on the picture):

    Also, what about millions of Poles murdered by Germans during WWII ?

  • D.  at  | 

    I think both comments about nr 8 are too calm. You just can’t write such things unless you’re a complete political-historical novice/ignorant or a relative to a german WW2 nazist or neonazist (like those “scholars”). Describing invaders (settlers of the NAtionalsoZIalismus) as victims is a crime on common memory and …common sense. It’s not about the balls to make such “risky” judgments, it’s about breathtaking arrogance and conceit. Shame!

  • Exlibris  at  | 

    The Reservations in the United States could logically be considered concentration camps. Often the land was extremely poor and placing hunter/gather societies onto small areas of land without educating them about agriculture led to starvation. And of course waging germ warfare with smallpox laden materials certainly can be considered active genocide. There has been thoughts that before European settlement in the Americas the native population was on par or even in excess of that of Europe. Within 200 years estimates of up to 90% of the native population were wiped out due to war and illness.

  • D.  at  | 

    By the way, do we think about the same “many” “scholars”?, any names, please?, and for the readers – in Germany it’s a strictly political issue, read about bloody nazi judge Hans Krüger – first chairman (1959–64) of the Bund der Vertriebenen (since 1998 – Erika Steinbach) and Rudi Pawelka from Preußische Treuhand (two biggest advocates of this issue). – What they want?, what are their political purposes? – Pawelka wants actually …money, Steinbach wants to soften german responsibility for a war atrocities, you know.. “we were not the only bad guys”, etc… – So, Jeff Danelek, a Denver, Colorado author, you have been manipulated into a real political struggle that has nothing to do, sorry to say this, with the real history. Bad thing is that you probably won’t edit your top ten – and lie will win, the reality will be dimmer and more deceitful.

  • D.  at  | 

    And last thing, as an American, you should consider as a genocide – the “job” Planned Parenthood is doing (you know – “helping women”), ‘cuz of them all – there is no bigger and most horrific holocaust – than that done – on children conceived. (Just look for the numbers.. then add numbers from the other countries).

    1. Konrad Kalbarczyk  at  | 


    2. Robert Gode  at  |

      Oh please enough of this crap about Planned Parenthood – your ignorance is sad to see. Millions of women receive all kinds of health care through Planned Parenthood, 3% receiving safe AND legal abortions. Take your religious bigotry elsewhere… it’s been the cause of the death and suffering of millions for centuries.

  • 5minutes  at  | 

    A few points.

    1. Several of these really aren’t genocides per se. They may have resulted in the killing of a lot of people, but they weren’t the deliberate and systematic attempt to wipe out a targeted group of civilians. #’s 9, 8, 7, and 1 were all terrible situations, but not true genocides. I would also add the maltreatment of the American Indian to this list of terrible situations that resulted in a lot of death, but not true genocide. Ditto with things like the Nanking Massacre.

    2. In the attempt to add some of these mass killings, you’ve ignored some impressive genocides that would’ve made excellent additions. The attempted genocides during the Bosnian War of the 1990′s. More recently, the ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Saddam Hussein’s attempts to wipe out the Kurds. The Indonesian campaign in East Timor. Etc.

    1. F  at  | 

      East timor?
      Dude, the only reason indonesian came to timor is to block communism. It was know by both british and u.s leader of the time.

      As far as I know, indonesia gave timor special otonomi to rule himself (what natural resouces can you expect from timor compared to money spent to establish civilization there and rebuild things that crushed during the civil war between communist and democratic party when portuguise leave without building a decent goverment)

      Indonesia rule timor fo about 20 years, and give referendum that finally liberate timor. No communism and australia can wash their hands and act as hero.

      So where the genocide came from?

  • Hobbes  at  | 

    It’s just a matter of typing: German crimes against ethnic Poles in your google desktop. Over 6mi deaths, average 2,800/day. More than 50% of upper and professional class of the society killed. If these numbers don’t make it a one of the top ten genocide and the number 8 that you put still does, then I’d call the whole list utterly flawed.

  • Yosomono  at  | 

    What no Belgium! King Leopold and his lackies killed MILLIONS. This picture sums up the horrors of the Belgians:,_1904.jpg

  • Konrad Kalbarczyk  at  | 

    What about RU 486?

  • JF  at  | 

    Number 8 seems to be kind of joke. Yeah. some may say that ordinary german families vere not Hitler supporters by 1945. But 10-15 years before, their chosen Hitler to be their chancelor. Germans were responsible for II WW. Yes, they were dying while being transported ot the west after the war, but the numbers given here are cited after some German activist (Erica Steinbach) who want to clear their responsibility for II WW and greatly enlarge number of casualties.
    BTW. Did you hear what Americans and allies did to Drezden in 1945, when almost only civilians were there? Please read “Soughterhouse no. 5″ by american WW II veteran and SF writer Kurt Vonnegut. There were more causalties, than from your nukes in Japan…. It was you – american who killed innocent German families and it seems there was nothing wrong about it. While after war all the people were dying because of hunger and sickness – not only Germans. And you say that it was a genocide in case of Germans, who are responsible for II WW?
    For me, Polish, a citizen of country that lost 6-10 mln people during II WW(20-30% population) and 40% of medics, 33% of tteachers, 30% of scienits and then in 1944 in Jalta sold to Stalin by Churchil and Roosvelt, for another 44 years of communist terror, for me this 8th biggest genocide is a bitchslap. Please, reconsider this selection.

  • SeanP  at  | 

    “The Killing Fields” is a great drama that takes place in Cambodia during the Khmer regime.

  • Defender  at  | 

    WHat about the most recent? the ethnic cleansing of muslims from burma. the horrific murders of not only men but women and children. i encourage you to research it. it was recent, around june 2012.

  • Jurek Pryhozen  at  | 

    I am appalled by the omission of the genocide of Native Americans. It is unconscionable to look at modern history and ignore this tragedy of the population of the two entire continents. Native American population was ruthlessly exterminated over many decades. This shameful crime was methodically carried out by the U.S. military and culminated with effective destruction of the Native American culture, expulsion of survivors from their land and their total humiliation. The fact that to this day there is no official recognition of this crime and not even a mention of the admission of responsibility is even more tragic. Shame!

  • Monika  at  | 

    #8 8. Expulsion of Ethnic Germans? Misteake.
    What about Katyn? What about great hunger on Ukraine 1932/33?

    Your list sucks

    1. A.N.  at  | 

      What about 12 million russian civilians and 3,5 million russian POW:s..1941-45

  • Nathan  at  | 

    Where is Darfur!? Not even an honorable mention!?

  • ThisListSux  at  | 

    You gotta be kidding, right? This is a JOKE of a list. Expulsion of Germans?? Medi-whosits?? Not even ONE mention of any Native American genocides….and did you ever hear of these really bad hombres from a few hundred years ago called the Mongols?? Their genocides were of such epic proportions in some cases they changed the very direction of civilization ITSELF. (Read Iraq)

    In a perfect world, you would be banned from ever writing another list anywhere ever, and at best, even holding a semi-sharpened pencil for all the thought, care or research you devoted to this so-called “list”.

  • auto devis  at  | 

    There are many genocides perpetrated through out history.
    the discovery of america both north and south and the centuries of oppression that followed to the the natives including the greatest civilizations known to man on that continent.
    how the colonial era of late 19th century the death toll could be bigger than many of the ones listed here.

    1. KrisA  at  | 

      Weren’t most of the deaths actually from diseases they had no immunity from, and later on, from alcoholism? That would make the death toll tragic, but not genocide.

      There’s a really fascinating book called “1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus” that makes the point that North America was not this pastoral wilderness the settlers found. The Native Americans had much more impact on their environment than was previously understood, including clearing out huge swatches of forest so that the wildlife they hunted would have more grassland and be easier to hunt and kill. Our ancestors went west and found the wilderness and teeming wildlife as it was because so many Indians had already died off from diseases and the land had reverted back to its primeval, mostly human-free state.

  • Joe  at  | 

    You missed two big ones, the Mongul Conquests and the killing off of Native Americans.

  • Wayne  at  | 

    I’ve always considered Julius Caesar’s “Conquest of Gaul” a particularly nasty genocide toward the Celtic peoples of Continental Europe. Any thoughts or comments?

  • Nathaniel Wenger  at  | 

    Why don’t you like Nazis?

    Wengerocracy is a form of government where the people watch the ruler entirely amongst their reign. Wengerocracy prevents the leader of a country from covering up unlawful behavior going on.

    Why aren’t Germans writing and publishing books on the importance of instating wengerocracy after the holocaust?

    Why aren’t Germans writing and publishing books on the importance of instating wengerocracy before pol pot takes power?

    Why aren’t Germans writing and publishing books on the importance of instating wengerocracy in Cambodia?

    Why didn’t Germans write and publish books on the importance of instating wengerocracy before khmer rouge?

    Why don’t I like Germans?

  • KrisA  at  | 

    I buy into “genocide” for the Germans expelled at the end of World War 2 for two reasons:

    1) they were expelled for being German, which fits the criteria for genocide: “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group” (Wikipedia again), and

    2) this definition has nothing to say about whether the ethnic, racial, religious, or national group in question deserved to die, in your opinion or anybody else’s.

    They were Germans, and Stalin, among others, was happy to assist in the extermination of a huge number of Germans at the end of WW2, because they were the evil, hated Germans. All groups that are treated thus are the evil, hated fill in your blank here. This is genocide.

    1. Karol  at  | 

      I thought that genocide means “killing” not “expulsion”. The deaths were mostly the result of starvation and diseases.

      Mayby it is a kind of genocide. But it should be #800 not #8.

  • taylor  at  | 

    Should have looked look up the definition of genocide before compiling the list.

  • Tfan  at  | 

    Yeah, if number 8th are Germans maybe you should put there also extermination of Persians at Thermopiles? These blood-thirsty Spartans killed so many of them there… In comparison to whole world population, or regular army size in these time it was a real genocide…

  • Adamos  at  | 

    So where is Palestinian genocide by the Israeli? After WWII simply stating an opinion about Israeli crimes makes you “Antisemitic”. This is insane. Israel has been murdering Palestinian civilians, most of them children, in a daily basis for tor than a half century.

  • a9fc8yt3kd1  at  | 

    “unlike Russia and China, Germany had no history of such cruelty beforehand”

    That’s not true. Germans committed similar acts of genocide in their African colonies during the nineteenth centuries.

  • grt  at  | 

    How can you not mention the Genocide on the Native Americans??? That’s typical US (better: not all US citizens, of course, but the typical stupid white christian rednecks that love their guns…), always busy pointing their fingers on others but systematically hushing up their own countless crimes. How the US treated the Native Americans was the inspiration for Hitler, btw.

    And making a Top 10 of Genocides is quite tasteless I think.

    1. a9fc8yt3kd1  at  | 

      If you read the first two paragraphs, you will see that there is a clear explanation of why the treatment of the Indians at the hands of Euro-American immigrants was not included in this list. To begin with, although the arrival of Europeans in North America may have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Indians, most of those deaths were the result of the accidental introduction of European diseases to which Indians had no resistance.

      Of course, there were cases of diseases being introduced intentionally, such as the British purposefully giving the Ottowa people Smallpox infected blankets during Pontiac’s rebellion. However, no one at the time could have possibly anticipated how rapidly those diseases would spread, or how devastating they would be.

      Aside from disease, the next largest culprit in the deaths of all those tens of millions of Indians was also not overt violence, but was instead the result of starvation resulting from the mass expropriation of Indian land by the governments of Canada and the United States of America.

      A key distinction is that the massive numbers of white settlers who displaced the Indians and settled on Indian lands didn’t do so purposefully in order to purposefully kill the Indians through starvation. To the contrary, they did so merely in order create better lives for themselves. The mass starvation of the Indians was just an unfortunate byproduct of it, and not an intentional result thereof.

      Of course, this shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting that every single white man, or white woman for that matter, who emigrated to the Americas and moved west, was innocent. Right from the start there were certain white people [Christopher Columbus being a notable example] who saw genocide and slavery as being the only suitable means of dealing with indigenous peoples.

      [Interestingly, from what I've read, Columbus and his men were all quite hated back in Spain as well. While the Spanish crown expended massive amounts of money, and massive numbers of Spanish soldiers died, in the reconquista of Spanish lands which had been seized by the Islamic caliphate in the middle ages, Columbus embezzled massive amounts of money, spent it on himself, and was also horrifically cruel to the Spanish peasants.]

      Despite a popular misconception, people in Europe had known since the time of the ancient Greeks that the earth was round, and approximately what its circumference was. However, after the fall of the Byzantine empire to the Ottoman Turks, Europe was cut off from its previously lucrative trade routes to East Asia.

      At the time, most scholars in Europe knew the approximate size of the earth, and knew that East Asia was too far away from Europe to get to by sailing west. However, Columbus did his own calculation of the size of the earth, and dramatically miscalculated. He thought the earth was much smaller than it really was, and that it would therefore be possible to get to Asia by sailing around the opposite side of the world.

      Now, the Spanish monarchy hated Columbus because he was so corrupt, and so when he presented his plan to the king and queen of Spain, they saw it as a convenient way to get rid of him. [They didn't actually expect Columbus to survive the journey.]

      So, they gave Columbus three of the smallest ships they could find, gave him a crew of thieves, murderers and rapists from the local jail [people they also never wanted to see again] and sent them on what was, as far as I know, the longest voyage in history at that time, [and yes, I've heard about the voyages of the eunuch admiral Zheng He].

      At the time, nobody in Spain knew that the Americas even existed. Essentially, Columbus and his men were a motley crew of worthless criminals who were crammed onto boats and sent out to sea in the hope that they would never return. They were thieves, murderers and rapists back in Europe, and when they arrived in the Americas, they continued to be thieves, murderers and rapists.

      Later, when other people in Spain realized that what Columbus had discovered was an entirely new world, and when they heard about all of the terrible thing which Columbus did there, Columbus was banished from the Spanish colonies in the Americas.

      The early period of European colonization of the Americas was largely characterized by people like Columbus enslaving and mass-murdering American Indians entirely to satisfy their own greed. However, if you read the actual historical accounts written by white settles during the period of westward expansion, most do not express the sort of seething, genocidal hatred which typically characterizes events such as the Nazi holocaust or the Rwandan genocide.

      In many of the original historical accounts written by European settles, [for instance: the Little House series] the writers express a certain amount of sympathy for the plight of the American Indians, and a certain amount of regret that the westward expansion of Euro-American civilization was causing so much suffering on the part of the indigenous people.

      In fact, from what I have read, it would appear that throughout the eighteen-hundreds it was primarily the white women, rather than the white men, who regularly advocated the mass-murder of the Indians. [Tell that to a typical feminist!] Nonetheless, the overall attitude of the white man toward the Indian during that period appears to have been primarily a combination of regret and stoicism, rather than of true hatred.

      Unfortunately, even though the vast majority of white settlers who migrated westward did not do so specifically in order to cause suffering to indigenous people, the continuous westward expansion of white settlers did nonetheless cause terrible suffering, largely due to starvation resulting from the expropriation of Indian lands, on the part of indigenous people.

      Unfortunately, this widespread starvation and suffering often led to immense hatred, on the part of the Indian, toward the white settlers. This frequently led to acts of horrific violence on the part of the Indians, toward the white settlers. Among such acts of violence were things such as the indiscriminate killing of white settlers, the mutilation of the genitals of the white settlers after they had been killed, the cutting open of the bellies of pregnant white women, the removal of their unborn children, the nailing of those unborn children to trees, and countless similar things.

      It is important to note that the Indian nations as a whole did not only do these things to white settlers. They had been subjecting one-another to similar atrocities since time immemorial, and they also subjected countless African-Americans, both slave and free, to the same sort of cruelty. [Many Indian nations practiced the enslavement of African-Americans as well.]

      Unfortunately, this widespread retaliatory violence on the part of American Indians toward white settlers continuously fed hatred and resentment on the part of white settlers toward American Indians, which probably would not have existed otherwise.

      Unfortunately, this hatred and resentment on the part of white settlers toward American Indians further led to sporadic killings of American Indians by settlers, militiamen, and after the illegal creation of the United States Army during the American civil war, by federal soldiers as well. Although most of these settlers, soldiers and militiamen were white men, some of them were also freed black men who either had joined the US army or a state militia, or else migrated westward to escape racial prejudice.

      Unfortunately, the frequent and barbaric violence perpetrated by American Indians upon white settlers perpetually fueled an ever deeper and deeper, and ever more and more bitter, hatred of American Indians by many white men and women, which was compounded in each successive generation by the continued violence.

      The vast majority of deaths of American Indians during the period of westward expansion were not the result of any concerted effort on the part of the white man to exterminate the Indians, but were merely an unintended consequence of the accidental introduction of European diseases, and of the perpetual theft of Indian lands.

      However, in the later half of the nineteenth century and throughout most of the twentieth century, the aforementioned hatred of American Indians, fueled by the aforementioned retaliatory violence, on the part of American Indians, toward white men and women, gave rise to numerous policies which were explicitly genocidal toward the Indians.

      Among these were practices such as the mass killings of herds of American bison [not "buffalo"] in order to purposefully reduce the populations of the Sioux tribes through starvation; the offering, by the US postal service, of bounties on the scalps of Indian children; the utterly appalling abuses [murder, rape and torture, forced lobotomies, electroshock therapy, surgical sterilizations, forced abortions and other medical experiments, and countless other atrocities] perpetrated upon indigenous children in the residential schools in the US and Canada during the twentieth century [I think Australia might have done the same things to their indigenous children, but I would have to look it up to be sure.]; and the involuntary surgical sterilizations of numerous Indian women during the nineteen-sixties and nineteen-seventies. [That's right, the NINETEEN-sixties and NINETEEN-seventies!]

      Here’s a question for you:

      What do the American abortion industry, the Catholic sex-abuse scandal, and racism toward American Indians, all have in common?

      The answer:

      The American abortion industry started out as a way to prevent American Indian teenage girls from giving birth after they were raped [real rape, not phony statutory rape] and impregnated by Christian priests in the residential schools, in an attempt to cover up the abuses which were occurring there. Remember that next time someone tells you that abortion is about a woman’s “right to chose”!

      In summary, although the vast majority of deaths of American Indians due to European colonization of the Americas were not the result of any concerted effort on the part of the white man to exterminate the Indians, but were instead merely an unfortunate byproduct of the aforementioned colonization, the conflict between the Indian and the white man did eventually give rise to numerous individual acts on the part of white men and women which were explicitly genocidal towards American Indians.

      Furthermore, although none of those individual genocidal acts may have occurred on anywhere near the scale of something such as the Nazi holocaust, the cruelty and callousness with which they were perpetrated was in most cases as terrible if not more so than anything which the author listed in this article.

      In particular, although the abuses in the Indian residential school system may not have affected nearly as many people as many of the events listed in this article, in terms of pure hatred and cruelty, I would consider it to be by far the single most despicable act which any civilization has ever committed.

      The victims the residential school system were not dangerous criminals, thieves or murderers. Rather, they were the most innocent of children, totally undeserving of what was done to them. The Indian children did not live separately from their abusers as did the Jews in Auschwitz, Dachau or Treblinka. Rather, they lived in close proximity. Their abusers knew their names and their faces, and yet still they were brutally tortured and killed.

      The torture and murder was not carried out indirectly by cold, unfeeling machines such as the Nazi gas chambers, to spare the abusers the guilt which might arise from seeing their victims’ humanity. Instead, the torture and murder was intimately hands on, and face-to-face. It was not a sudden, uncontrolled outburst of violence such as in Rwanda. Rather, the horrific tortures and killings of Indian children in the residential school system were frighteningly well-planned and well-orchestrated, and continued for decades.

      The perpetual rape, torture and murder was not the fault of only a few evil persons perpetrating such abuses on their own initiative and without the knowledge or sanction of their superiors. On the contrary, the abuses in the residential school system were orchestrated and sanctioned at the absolute highest levels of the governments of the nations in which they occurred.

      Although other individuals have attempted to apologize by proxy for the abuses which were committed, it does not appear that any of the specific individuals responsible for those abuses has ever expressed any remorse therefore. [At least some of the guards at Nazi death camps were sorry for what they did!]

      Lastly, although a small number of the individuals responsible for some of these a