.
.
.
.

What the most murderous regimes of the 20th century have in common?

Faisal Al-Shammeri

Published: Updated:

Well first off who are the most murderous regimes of the 20th century? National Socialist Germany, Bolshevik Russia, Mao’s China and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge are generally accepted as the defining standards for the most murderous regimes of the past century.

Between these four you can start at the collective number of some 75-80 million for a sound foundational basis into finding out what the actual numbers really are. Stalin and Mao are both accredited with some 30 million on their account, but it is also generally accepted that the actual numbers are significantly higher.

These are just numbers that we start with, confidentially knowing that it’s a sound point for beginning any discussion of the lives lost in their respective tyrannies. Who knows how many souls perished at the hands of these tyrants who slaughtered their own for the sole purpose of achieving a greater glory of goodness knows what.

Stalin once said: “The loss of one life is a tragedy, the loss of a million is just a mere statistic.” Social engineering at the hand of an absolute state has, and always will be, a recipe for disaster for all only kept in “line” by the coercive police power of The State. An economist once received the Nobel Peace Prize for Economics under the premise that a free market worked best with as little government intervention as possible in a given market-place.

Government intervention under this same principle, although achieved in this example to achieve social or state aims, has proved this to not only be correct but the one indispensable check that is in place from keeping a police state from enslaving it’s citizenry. But what did these four murderous regimes of the 20th Century have in common? They all either placed man above God, or simply abolished religion in all of it’s forms making the practice of, or protestation of Faith a crime of the state.

In today’s world it is prominently discussed, in some but not all circles, about how religion has started the world’s wars or stokes ongoing conflicts that capture our attention on a nightly basis. Well let’s take a closer look at this underlying conventional wisdom. Is it not the humanity of Islam and Allah’s Muslims in The Kingdom that it is outraged by what it sees from ISIS in Syria and Iraq?

And is it not this same sense of humanity that has made The Kingdom such a forceful advocate for tackling this problem head on by taking a leadership role not just in the region but in the Muslim world as a whole? So is it not therefore reasonable to say that the religious foundation that makes up the kingdom is actually what keeps it from slipping into a world where it drifts between indifferent and apathy by humanitarian disasters?

Let’s take a slightly different approach to looking at the same question. Who is launching a war for the spreading of sectarian strife by permanently destabilizing the Sunni Arab lands between the Tigris and the Euphrates? Who is fleeing from Syria en masse? Predominantly Sunnis who have inhabited the lands between the two rivers for centuries.

Who is being brought in to replace them, especially in Iraq? What the purpose of these questions and the underlying premises of this article is that, for all the talk of religion being used as a pretext for war or being the furnace for war, those regimes who have denied religion it’s proper place among it’s citizenry are the ones who have the highest body count of all. This is just irrefutable fact. The secondary premise is that because Saudi Arabia has as its identity a religious foundation it is the reason why it has not as a state ever slipped into darkness like Germany, Russia or China did in the previously mentioned examples.

A nation that puts God above man will have a very difficult time descending intellectually and societally into the abyss of pain, power, and tyrannical darkness. Religion, and religious people, are not appropriate bases for absolute power in the hands of a small circle of devious plotters. The third premise is that there is someone launching a war to achieve radical aims and using the banner of religion too.

And that is not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For any casual, or for that matter, attentive observer it should be crystal clear where this is originating from. If you look to blame someone and have them answer this charge you are correct to look in The Arabian Gulf but don’t knock at Riyadh’s door. Instead go across the street and knock at Tehran’s.