"There are two histories :
official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the
real causes of events"
Honoré de Balzac
ADDENDUM, 9-07: A couple of
thought-provoking quotes from the documentary film, "An
Inconvenient Truth," with Al Gore exposing the dangers of
global warming. This is the one where we are told that the
misconception about the science has been deliberately created by big
business, where their objective is to "reposition global
warming as theory rather than fact." The "big
business" in our case would be the genocide industry, and we can
rewrite the same as their objective being to reposition the
"Armenian genocide" as fact, rather than theory. Naturally,
those with the power, money and influence have a good chance of
getting away with their version of events. Here are the two relevant
"Scientists have an independent
obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it." (Al
Genocide scholars are not true scientists, because before one is
allowed to join their club, it is required to be in agreement with the
events the club has constituted as "genocides."
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his
salary depends upon his not understanding it." (Upton
It must be added some genocide scholars are not dishonest, but simply
irrational. They wear their emotions on their sleeves. Then again,
there are others who feel they must affirm the agreed-upon genocides,
regardless of the facts or logic. That is because the less genocides
they find, the more irrelevant they become.
There is one more quote from the film that is entirely
applicable not only to the genocide scholar, but to all those firmly
convinced of the mythological Armenian genocide: "What
gets us into trouble is not what we don't know; it's what we know for
sure that just ain't so." (Mark Twain)
ADDENDUM, 9-07: As
far as the many who point to the opinion of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars, to support the "evidence"
for the Armenians' genocide, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) got it on
"The fact that an opinion has
been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd...
Indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a
widespread belief is to be more foolish than sensible."
It is now October of 2003, and I have
put the writing of this site mostly behind me... and it was because of this
site that I have come to recognize the dishonesty of the so-called
It's one thing for Armenian prosecutors
such as Vahakn Dadrian and Richard Hovannisian to lie through their teeth....
they're Armenians, and who knows what psychological and Turk-hating problems
bedevil them to pursue their unprofessional course of deception. However, what is the excuse of non-Armenians?
There is a whole gang of them... Richard
Falk, Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Eric Markusen. It's like they are all part
of a club.
How could they close their minds so
near-completely to the other side of the story? How very mind-boggling.
I'm only beginning to get into this
breed of dogmatic defamers... who have little consideration for the truth,
like their Armenian counterparts. I wanted to write a little exposé,
but time considerations being what they are... let me present, for the time
being, excerpts of an open letter I sent to Dr. Stephen Feinstein and his
Affiliated Faculties, and other parties associated with the University of
Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS). (This site is
more Armenian than the countless sites out there... since the center is
financed by at least one wealthy Armenian benefactor. They even have had the
gall to put up a Talat Pasha telegram forgery.)
us examine what might be driving some of these genocide scholars.
letter to Stephen Feinstein carried these excerpts...
It is true, a lot of these genocide conferences operate behind
closed doors, and are only open to members of the "club" that already affirms
the Armenian "Genocide." What is that all about? Contrast with a conference
given in Turkey in 1990, when almost all the big names from the Hovannisian/Dadrian camp
were invited… and only Levon Marashlian was brave enough to attend.
If the idea is to get at the truth, why be afraid of dissenting
views? Could it be because there are other reasons to perpetuate the Armenian
"Genocide," besides the truth?
How many of these genocide centers and related genocide-bodies are
sponsored by Armenians? I subsequently discovered that the Holocaust Memorial Center in
Washington (the one that went on to recognize the Armenian "Genocide") had a
carrot-on-stick dangling in front of its face, to recognize the Armenian
"Genocide"… in the form of one million dollars, from a wealthy Armenian (who
later reneged on his promise; not unlike the time when Armenia, after her post-WWI
formation, reneged on a fifty million dollar loan at five per cent interest, from the
United States government… afterwards betraying the USA by willingly — according to the
young nation’s first prime minister's 1923 Manifesto — joining the Soviet Union). Dr.
Feinstein and I both attended New York University, and recently yet another NYU building
is going up in Greenwich Village… with the name, "The … Kevorkian Institute of
Near East Studies."
When Turkey tried to even the stakes by financing an institute of
its own, beginning in the 1980s (during the spree of violent Armenian terror, which
reopened the discussion of the Armenian "Genocide"), eventually all hell broke
loose. Turkey was accused of trying to cover up past crimes, instead of countering the
awful lies spread by the massive Armenian propaganda machinery. (Individual Turks are
either too apathetic or too ignorant or too poor to finance such operations, in contrast
to the fanatical Armenians, whose genocide is a raison d'etre... so the only entity with
enough financial muscle to make a difference remains the Turkish government... which has a
negative reputation to deal with.) The Institute of Turkish Studies came under attack
(with its whopping staff of two, according to Eric Markusen's co-written paper), and primarily its director,
Heath Lowry. However, nobody said anything against another partisan operation, the
probably much better financed Zoryan Institute, where Vahakn Dadrian comfortably eked/ekes
out a living, working for many years to defame the Turks (the fruits of much of his labors
are proudly on display in CHGS's Armenian Resources section.) Eric Markusen decried the
"Professional Ethics" of Dr. Lowry, and yet reveres Dr. Dadrian… whom Dr.
Markusen invited not long ago to speak at the Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide
Studies, where Markusen works part-time.
Richard Hovannisian has similarly held the Armenian Educational
Foundation (AEF) Chair in Modern Armenian History at the University of California, since
it was endowed in 1986. Yet, Dr. Markusen finds nothing wrong with Hovannisian's
professional ethics. Why are "genocide scholars" like Eric Markusen and Stephen
Feinstein so blatantly subjective, giving a bad name to what the ideals of historian and
I can almost excuse Armenian professors for their dishonesty. They
might have their psychological problems, raised to hate Turks as so many other Armenians.
Prof. Hovannisian, in a rare PBS debate, declared that his father, "when
he had an opportunity would kill something." (He couldn't even say
his father would kill human beings, but things.) Vahakn Dadrian (according to an
Armenian site) was born in Turkey, and began his lifelong mission to make Turks out to be
monsters after he read the fictional "The
Forty Days of Musa Dagh" (written by Franz Werfel, later discovering he was duped
by Armenians, according to testimony by Rabbi Albert Amateau.) After digging into the
details over the years, both so-called scholars undoubtedly discovered the Armenian people
bore the responsibility for the relocations,
having fired the first shot and treacherously betraying their country in the Ottoman
Empire's life and death struggle... and yet they continue to deceive by only presenting
evidence bearing weight to their genocide. Who knows what their motivational factors
are... perhaps being heroes among their people, and enjoying rewarding careers were among
them. Regardless, posthumously at least, they will widely be regarded for the charlatans
they are, when the truth becomes known. It will take time, but the truth will become known…
since, luckily, truth has a way of prevailing.
I became intrigued with the "genocide scholar" breed when
I investigated what Roger Smith and Robert
Melson had to say during congressional testimonies, regarding the adoption of yet
another Armenian "Genocide" resolution. Here were the professorial non-Armenian
counterparts of Justin McCarthy, who also gave testimony in the opposing camp. I figured, these men are non-Armenian,
and they must only be interested in the truth. However, in contrast to Prof. McCarthy who
concentrated on the facts, they didn't say anything of substance (aside, mainly, from
quoting Morgenthau)... later, I learned Prof. Smith based his testimony on the
"Professional Ethics" paper he also co-wrote... where the big ejaculation was a
quote by an Ottoman official which does not stand up to scrutiny... and these men (like
Richard Falk, whose CHGS "Foreword" I examined in my last letter) were
practically more Armenian than the Armenians themselves.
I have been corresponding with a genocide scholar recently, and he
outright stated his goal is to affirm the Armenian "Genocide." Roger Smith
belongs to an Armenian organization which states similar affirmation as well. This kind of
thinking blows me away. Aren't these men professors, and historians... ideally to remain
objective, and get at the truth? I'm not a professor or "professional"
historian, but if I came across conclusive evidence there was an official state-sponsored
policy for the extermination of the Armenian people, I would have NO trouble in admitting
it. All that matters is the truth.
Why are these genocide scholars so dogmatic? The only reasons can
1) They are brainwashed and/or bigoted. Like Henry
Morgenthau, they have a deep-rooted belief that the Turks are savage by nature, and must
have been guilty.
2) As Prof. McCarthy has speculated, some who are Jewish have an irrational fear
negation of the Armenian "Genocide" will cause some to question the Holocaust's
3) Some need to justify their positions as genocide scholars, a relatively new field
of study, and one that doesn't call for the promulgation of all these genocide centers…
and the Armenian "Genocide" is simply too sexy a genocide to let go of.
4) Most cynically, they are being sponsored by the deep-pocketed Armenians... and are
under "orders." Some, serving as spokesman, make cash on the side by giving
talks on the Armenian "Genocide."
Blindly holding on to the biased Morgenthau/Bryce/missionaries/New
York Times "evidence" does not define a true scholar. Nor does any of the four
other above reasons, most certainly! A true scholar must be objective, and neutral... a
true scholar must be an honest truth-seeker.
Genocide scholars are today's missionaries
I have maintained the
Armenian "Genocide" cannot be labeled a genocide, as the 1948 U.N.
Convention presents in its articles that there must be "intent" — never proven with genuine evidence — and the targeted group's political alliance may present a
problem. (The Armenians were allied with the Russians and other Allies.) Most people
interpret "genocide" as what happened to the Jews under Hitler.
character of Pam Grier in ORIGINAL GANGSTAS boiled
down the "problem" to Fred Williamson's character that as
easily applies to another corrupt gang: the genocide scholars.
Hear what she had to say. Fred
replies that at one point the gang
just wanted to get out, but Pam says "there's no place for them
to go; there's nothing else out there for them." Similarly, the
gang of genocide scholars needs to justify their importance.
Here's an excellent analysis of
the word by two writers who later irresponsibly enjoy applying the word to
everyone's favorite whipping boy... the Turks, and their treatment of the Kurds:
"terrorism," is an invidious but fuzzy word, that has long been used in
propaganda to describe the conduct of official enemies. It conjures up images of
Nazi death camps and is frequently used along with the word "holocaust" to
describe killings that are being condemned. On the Nazi-Jewish Holocaust model,
genocide implies the attempt to wipe out an entire people. But in the Genocide
Convention of 1948 the word was defined more loosely as any act "committed with
the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious
group as such." The Convention even included in genocide acts that were causing
serious "mental harm" or inflicting "conditions of life" aimed
at such destruction. This vagueness has contributed to its politicization... the
word genocide has been applied loosely wherever people are killed who are deemed
"worthy" victims. In our view this is not only opportunism but also a
corruption of meaning of a word whose unique sense implies not just killing or
massacre but an attempted extermination of a people, in whole or substantial part.
(The NATO-Media Lie Machine: "Genocide" in Kosovo?, Edward S. Herman &
David Peterson, Z magazine, May 2000)
So there are different
interpretations of this word. A legal body (The International
Center for Transitional Justice) the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Committee
approached, for example, throws out a bunch of loopholes... such as, a government
need not be behind a genocidal policy and that only one or
more persons need to be killed. In this context, the Armenian "Genocide"
can definitely be labeled a genocide, but so can nearly every other conflict. The My
Lai massacre can be labeled a "genocide."
Jean Marais has written a
passage that hits the nail on its head:
Genocide this!!! Tell
me something. I have been wondering since 1973. In that year, while playing poker
with a bunch of Greeks, Armenians and Italians in the back room of a Greek
restaurant in New Jersey, I punched a Greek named Manoli and broke his nose, as he
was trying to cheat. I am wondering if this incident went down in Greek annals as
the "Greek Genocide of 1973 at Town Diner in Paterson, New Jersey."
The word genocide has become so
watered down, it has become meaningless; consequently, the genocide scholars gain
further importance. Since the genocide scholar now has as wide a field of study
as possible... practically anything can be labeled a genocide.
However, I do not acknowledge
these detracting definitions of genocide. I believe such watering down presents an
insult to the victims of real genocides, as the Jews during WWII.
If there are those of you who
irrationally fear the real facts behind the Armenian "Genocide" might
cause people to question the Holocaust, perhaps you should consider another side of
the coin… as related by Dalia Karpel, from her article "There Was No
Genocide" (Ha'aretz, January 23, 1998):
"The Armenians ...
compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say
that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to
contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the
Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute."
(Holdwater, Later note:
probably Prof. Bernard Lewis was behind those words, and not Dalia Karpel.)
The genocide scholars, by
appearing to study a subject so abominable, come across as noble and honorable.
However, many of these genocide scholars are far from honorable, if they refuse to
consider the whole truth. Such genocide scholars are today's missionaries. During
the war years, missionaries within the Ottoman Empire appeared honorable, as well;
everyone knew clergymen did not lie.
I'm at a loss to understand why a historically
friendless people as the Jews don't pay homage to one of their very best friends in
history. Certainly, many American Jews are ignorant of their history... and American Jews
have as much right to be affected by the negative image of Turks like every other
American... but even those who know better sometimes turn the other cheek. For example, I
remember watching episodes of the PBS series, "Civilization and the Jews." In
the episode that discussed the Spanish Inquisition (a period of history where practically
every Christian nation in Europe closed their doors to the Jews desperately attempting to
find refuge), only the city of Amsterdam was mentioned as a locale that accepted some
Jews. Surely the Jewish scholars involved with the program knew fully well which European
country really saved those Jews' necks, en masse... yet, mum was the word on the Ottoman
Empire. Frankly, I didn't get it.
I'm not implying all Jewish people exhibit such
thoughtless ingratitude... the Sephardic Jews of the Ottoman Empire remained loyal until
their nation's dying day, and the knowledgeable among them today are great friends with
the Turks. (Fairer-weather Jewish-American friends of Turkey include groups that warmed up
only after Turkey and Israel forged their military partnership in 1996.)
However, it shouldn't be solely the Sephardim;
historian Cecil Roth has written:
"Jewish people must
always recall the Ottoman Empire with gratitude who, at one of Judaism's darkest hours,
flung open its door widely and kept them open."
Haim Nahum, last Grand Rabbi of the Ottoman Empire,
declared in 1924:
"It is actually an
understatement that there was no anti-Semitism in Turkey. In fact, there was a
pro-Semitism. Ottoman governments treated their Jewish subjects with a special
consideration and compassion as one of their own, as one of the most loyal and devoted
subjects of the empire."
Isn't that fantastic? When and where in history have
these terribly persecuted people lived and prospered in such freedom and safety... for so
In a 2001 letter to "Forward," Sephardic Jewish-American Dr. J.E. Botton spoke
for all Jews when he wrote: "It should be our
moral obligation to defend Turkey"
What is also ironic is that some Ashkenazi Jews...…
those like Henry Morgenthau and not always friendly to the Turks... possibly are
descendants of a Turkic tribe, the Khazars.
(A concept which allows us to re-think association of Jews as a Semitic people.)
And here we have Jewish genocide scholars such as Israel Charny who perpetuate the
notion that the Ottoman Turks systematically behaved like monstrous Nazis, even though
there is no genuine evidence. Elie
Wiesel, having suffered horrors firsthand, might have a good excuse for being
genocide-obsessed... but he has no excuse for lazily accepting the word of the Dadrians of
the world, without objectively doing his homework. Particularly if he has as good a
reputation as he enjoys, insuring many other lazy-thinking people to automatically accept
his false conclusions at face value.
Rare "Genocide Scholar" Who Arrived at a Different Conclusion!
The brutal Armenian tragedy, which the
perpetrators still refuse to acknowledge adequately, was conducted within the
context of a ruthless Turkish policy of expulsion and resettlement. It was terrible
and caused horrendous suffering but it was not part of a process of total
annihilation of an entire people.
Deborah E. Lipstadt, DENYING THE HOLOCAUST
Holdwater: I became aware of Ms. Lipstadt while
watching a PBS show on Auschwitz in early 2005... and was curious to see what she
had to say about the so-called Armenian Genocide. She's not saying there was no
genocide, from the above (since there are so many wacky definitions)... but at least
she was responsible enough to conclude the Armenian episode should not be regarded
on an equal plane with what the Nazis did to the Jews.
It's possible Ms.
Lipstadt might have "revised" her views since the writing of her
book, as the consensus of her "genocide scholar" brethren might have
proven too overwhelming, regarding their second favorite topic [after the Holocaust]
of the Armenians' experience. I didn't see direct evidence of this via an Internet
search, but I wouldn't be surprised. (ADDENDUM, 8-06:
Indeed, Ms. Lipstadt is fully in line with her club, regarding the Armenian story.
She hypocritically signed her name to this
1998 commemoration, and here is a small
look at the "defeater of deniers.")
I feel Jewish genocide scholars should be especially careful, before
they play fast and loose with the facts. Unless they are absolutely positive a
state-sponsored policy of extermination against the Armenians occurred (backed up by real
facts; The Genocide Forum's Henry R. Huttenbach has written: "There is no crime
without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual
proof"), they ought to be ashamed about pointing to (for example) defamatory
passages from the discredited Blue Book.
When genocide scholars disregard the truth in
the pursuit of their agendas, making one side of a historical event look completely
bad and the other side completely good, what they are doing is fanning the flames of
hatred. They operate in this fashion behind the shield of coming across as
"human rights" champions, and in exercising the noble goal of
"preventing future genocides," which makes their efforts all the more
insidious. They are really committing a great evil, particularly when many knowingly
use propaganda information that so clearly deviates from true historical facts.
Let us allow Arthur Ponsonby (FALSEHOOD IN WARTIME, New York, 1928, p. 18) to
explain what the creepy genocide scholar indulges in:
"[T]he injection of the poison of hatred into men's minds by means of
falsehood is a greater evil in wartime than the actual loss of life, the defilement
of the human soul is worse than the destruction of the human body."
One can almost excuse this "evil"
during wartime, as "all's fair in love and war." But what is the genocide
scholar's excuse for injecting this poison of hatred during ordinary times?
Importance of Doubt
The following passage was spoken by Comedian Bill Maher, ending an episode of his HBO
program, “Real Time,” September 2007. Maher was criticizing President George Bush, but
the words surely apply as well to the hypocritical and "My way or the highway"
It must feel good to be dead certain about everything, but it’s not a virtue;
especially when you’re always wrong. Bertrand Russell said the trouble with the world is
the stupid are cocksure, and the intelligent full of doubt. (And then he rewrote that
quote fifty-six more times.) Doubt, for lack of a better word, is good. It suits human
nature. Doubt is what makes you careful. Doubt is what makes you open to
change. (Doubt is why Eddie Murphy took a DNA test.)
Genocide scholars have an agenda, and what they sanctimoniously
designate as "genocides" must be affirmed at all costs. Otherwise, the genocide
scholar exposes him or herself for the insignificant and often harmful,
prejudice-spreading entity he really is, The last thing the genocide scholar wants is to
be careful, or to be open to change. Those attributes would be mandatory with the genuine