Monday, November 05, 2007


Meet the New Boss, Worse Than the Old Boss

None of the left leaning readers of this little blip of a blog have reacted to my question about the extreme one-sidedness of political murders in the 20th Century. The fact is that the left (excluding the National Socialists) murdered just under 100 million, according to The Black Book of Communism, while the political murders by the right barely numbered one million. For current liberals it's a being extremely bothered by the mote in the other's eye while ignoring the beam in their own kind of thing. One ex-patriot readers points to some of the 20th Century dictatorships in Central and South America in a counter accusal of the right. The victims of the right wing dictatorships in all of Central and South America are relatively small and are part of the one million figure. Some have pointed to the blood thirsty Shah of Iran and his dreaded and vicious secret police, the Savak. Oh, yeah, I heard they were bad; but, I ask, how many did they murder? Crickets.

The followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini say anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000. Ouch, that's a lot, but is it accurate?

Well here is an answer from Iranians. For the period 1963 to 1979, 3,164 were killed by the Savak. Well, that's a lot less.

What about since the Shah was deposed in 1979 and the benevolent paradise of the Iranian Islamic Republic was established; how many of the Mullah's political enemies have been executed since then? Steven Hayward, in his book about the triumph of President Jimmy Carter's administration, The Real Jimmy Carter, says that more people were executed in Iran in the first year of Khomeini's rule than during the entirety of the Shah's Savak's harsh reign.

Here are some more figures. The Brit paper The Telegraph reports executions of Iranians merely for political party affiliation, in just the year 1988, which numbered over 30,000.
For the period prior to that, namely 1979 to 1986, Amnesty International recorded at least 6,500 executions. Since then, it is difficult to get reliable figures.

OK, reviewing the bidding--for the period 1963 to 1979 (16 years), under the Shah, 3,164.

For the period 1979 to 1989 (10 years), under Khomeini, at least 36,500.

Boy am I glad Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter helped get rid of the Shah, he was a bad human rights abuser.

Labels: ,

I have read your blog for a few weeks and have found it to be interesting if nothing else. I do think you suggesting that Jimmy Carter had a role and was supportive of the removal of the Shah from power is one of the most batshit insane things I have ever heard.

It surprises me that someone who has a "this day in history" blurb every few days would be so in the dark about how key of an ally the Shah was to the US. We REALLY did everything possible to keep into power, including taking him into the US for medical treatment and selling him military equipment.
Thanks for the feedback. I am aware of all you have written, but I still think Carter was instrumental in getting the Shah deposed. I'll post on it more. Stay tuned.

There is a reason why murders committed by Uncle Joe, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. is a complete non starter. The mere fact that one is a Democrat or that one opposes some of the Neoconservative policies exercised by the current administration does not mena that one endorses Communism, Socialism, or the excesses of the tyrants who were the practicioners of those failed ideologies.

Accordingly, given the failures of Neoconservative policy, I would suggest that perhaps the only political ideology that one should consider following is pragatism tempered by morality. I suppose that is hopelessly idealistic.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how being a socially-responsible market capitalist ties me some how with Stalin.

The reason I bring up the right-wing dictatorships is because of the America's implicit help in those murders. What Mao did, I don't have control over. But what my country does with my tax money concerns me.

Is that so hard to understand?

Also, your logic basically goes something like this: we have killed less than Stalin so Stalin is bad and we are good.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even a kindergartener knows that.
Mike, you and Tony must have a guilty conscience or something. Who equated you to Stalin et al.? I'm just wondering about the reasons for such a huge imbalance in political murders. Have yet to hear an answer. Two wrongs don't equal a right, but reasonable people can compare a murderer of a hundred people to a murderer of one person and find the first murder worse. The mote in another's eye...beam in your own seems still to apply even if Mao never got foreign aid from America. Was there a reason for our support of the very less bloodthirsty right wing despots, something to do with the Truman Doctrine, perhaps? Just asking. Thanks for your thoughtful coments; you too, anon.
Go back and read the first few sentences in your post, Roger.

Ok, did you do it? Seriously, read them.

Ok, now, honestly you wonder why we feel that you are suggesting that we, as "current liberals" are, in YOUR ESTIMATION somehow tied to Stalin?

Come on man. Don't play dumb, it doesn't become you.

As to the Truman Doctrine, the answer is ostensibly yes. However if you look at the economics, you will see another picture. But you don't look at economics.
You and Stalin are both lefties, but you are not like Stalin and I certainly didn't mean to compare (or reasonably could be construed to have compared) you to him. And I don't see the economics because of the lack of education in it (other than Marx) so, as you say, I can't see it.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?