How do you like that. Taner Akcam has gone and “exposed” Holdwater.
He says I am Murad Gumen. And before anything could be confirmed, the Armenian extremists
have gone to town with the information, performing what they do best: character
And then the Turkish press latched on to the idea. They accepted as a “fact” what
Taner Akcam, of all people, has presented.
Are they right?
I can tell you right now I am not playing the pro-Armenians’ slimy game. It goes
directly against what the TAT site has stood for, and one reason why I felt the need to
hide behind a moniker. The pro-Armenians are aware their evidence to support their
genocide myth is nonexistent. In order to silence opposition, they conduct no-holds-barred
As I have always said, what we need to focus on is the message; not the messenger.
But let’s briefly look at the evidence Akcam has presented, to confirm my identity. He
may not be able to understand this, because to truth-challenged people, preferred
conclusions must exist in a vacuum. Thus, after some six centuries of living in relatively
harmonious co-existence, all of a sudden, the Ottoman Turks decided to exterminate the
Armenian people. (And whatever reasons the deceptive Armenian genocide industry has come
up with to try and explain a murder motive strangely did not apply to the many other
minorities of the Ottoman Empire.)
Similarly, what makes anyone think my life existed in a vacuum, before the creation of the
Yes, I am from a generation where Turks who immigrated into the USA (generally from the
professional class; the “lower” class ones were generally disallowed from entering, in
accordance with U.S. immigration policy. Such restrictions were not in place for more “favored”
ethnic groups, the ones who came in greater numbers and established a hateful stronghold,
feeding even more greatly to the anti-Turkish prejudices in existence) assimilated into
U.S. society, leaving the “old country” behind, much in opposition to the other ethnic
groups with anti-Turkish axes to grind.
But am I the only one? Am I the only one who speaks “American” English, and who has
And even though I have had little to do with fellow Turkish-Americans (as I have written
elsewhere, my best friends while growing up were Greek-American), is it conceivable that
my family had no contact with other Turkish-Americans.... or after I became an adult, that
I had no contact with other Turkish-Americans?
Before beginning the TAT site, do readers think I didn’t bat the idea around with
friends from this crowd?
Couldn’t one of them have told me about his experience, which was so exciting — given
that this particular example (cleaning up a poorly-prepared form letter originating from
the Turkish Women’s League, sending it to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, and resulting
in getting a request from its director to get contra-”Armenian genocide” evidence...
to someone who was basically ignorant about the topic, and was put in the position of
conducting research when such research was unavailable in the USA of 1980) demonstrated
how woefully unprepared the Turkish side was, and still is — and I just had to put it
But does anyone think I was not going to protect the privacy of such a writer? Given how
out-of-control the extremists among Armenians can famously be? Naturally, I had to write
that it was I, as “Holdwater,” who submitted this letter.
Ironically, Taner Ackam’s exposition reveals
exactly what the caliber of his “scholarship” is worth. For example, Akcam
repeats the weasel history of his master Dadrian, in claiming that the Ottomans had
a “two track” system. They wrote orders protecting the Armenians, but what they
actually did — according to Dadrian/Akcam — was circumvent these orders with
secret orders to exterminate Armenians. Not a single example of the latter has been
found, although there are plenty of the former. Aside from the total lack of motive
and lack of logic for this birdbrained speculation (which “assumes that the
Ottomans deliberately confused their own officials in wartime so that future
historians would be fooled,” as Prof. Justin McCarthy worded it), Dadrian/Akcam
had to come up with SOME evidence to try and support their dishonesty. So they “cherry-picked”
an example of telegram-cancellation from the memoirs of Talat Pasha’s secretary,
regarding not an official telegram reflecting government policy, but a letter of
recommendation regarding a job applicant. VOILA!
This is exactly what Taner Akcam has done, here. He found a link to my identity, and
automatically concluded VOILA!
But as genuine scholars and truth-seekers know, the truth often lies beneath the
easy surface. Taner Akcam is neither a scholar nor a truth-seeker, so whatever
Dadrian-style “expedient information” that proves an agenda-ridden theory will
suffice. Such is the role of the propagandist.
In Taner Akcam’s case, this kind of revelation is not harmless. Just as he has
maligned his “own” people with deceitful Dadrian propaganda, helping to cause
ignorant and already prejudiced folks throughout the world to further hate the
Turks, making an announcement of my identity as though it were an established fact,
without confirmation, is highly damaging, highly irresponsible, and highly
unprofessional. Let’s hold this thought.
I’d like to address some of the points Taner Akcam has made in his circulated “AGOS”
(an Armenian newspaper in Turkey) articles, the first being, “Holdwater: The
mysterious name behind the ‘premier’ anti-Armenian website.”
Now note how creepy Taner Akcam is, even with the choice of his title. The TAT site
is certainly not an “anti-Armenian” web site, but an “anti-Armenian GENOCIDE”
web site. There is a huge difference.
For example, many Irish historians agree the Irish Famine did not constitute a
genocide, as others — usually more emotional people — are too quick to conclude.
The issue is open to debate. Those who disagree, such as the mentioned Irish
historians, are certainly not “anti-Irish.” This point is so obvious, it should
not even need to be spelled out.
Already Taner Akcam is signaling the less-balanced Armenians among the rank-and-file
to “Get this guy.” He won’t be stopping there, but already we must ask: What
kind of a morally-challenged man is Taner Akcam?
Before we get to the AGOS articles, I would like to address another essay Akcam wrote
about this topic. I did not make a copy, and I have reservations about bringing this up,
as I normally would not comment unless I have the “dead to rights” evidence. But I am
breaking this rule, because I distinctly recall a line that was to the effect of:
“I know Holdwater is Ilyas Botas/Keenan Pars.”
When I read that line, I remember thinking, how could this man make such a definite
conclusion, when there really was no way for him to “know”? (Naturally, I knew the
answer, aware of what kind of man we’re dealing with; but I still couldn’t help
At any rate, as soon as Akcam’s Holdwater-related pieces appeared, some of the rank and
file also repeated this contention that I am Ilyas Botas, but they left out the Keenan
Pars part. And I very clearly remember reading “Keenan Pars” as well. This is what
made me certain that I wasn’t imagining that Akcam had prepared a more vicious version
of his “Holdwater” article, one that was subsequently removed. (But not before the
damage was done.)
For the record, Ilyas Botas is another Turkish-American who writes in “Americanese,”
has a sense of combativeness, and injects humor into his writings. I understand he has
been harassed by Armenians, listening to rumors that he was Holdwater. (There have been
plenty of rumors regarding who I really am; one even speculated I was Dr. Heath Lowry!
Unfortunately, when too many Armenians are “told”
something in favor of Hai Tahd, the Armenian Cause, they automatically assume it’s
true. Here is a piece by Ilyas Botas featured
on TAT, written under another of his pseudonyms.)
In this more aggressive essay, Akcam capped off by bragging in the conclusion that his
discovery demonstrates what a great scholar he is. That’s when I remember thinking what
he has done has nothing to do with “scholarship,” and everything to do with “detective
Pro-Armenian propagandists love to remind us that they are “scholars” every chance
they get. But just as repeating the word “genocide” (as Akcam did sixty-four times in
what was his first Armenian-related English language article) does not make it so, these
frauds should realize they are not fooling anybody. A real scholar is someone such as
Prof. Guenter Lewy, who examined all of the relevant information, before reaching
dispassionate conclusions. (In his book, “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A
Disputed Genocide”; by the way, the Journal of Genocide Research seriously
compromised its credibility by having such an obvious Armenian agent as Taner Akcam review
Lewy’s book. [March ‘07.] Akcam actually sniffed that Lewy’s exceptional book “was
not a work to bother with” and that “Lewy’s book seems to be the work of
someone who has not mastered the subject.” Of course his partisan game plan is to
try and discredit a truly scholarly work, but can the reader believe the gall of Taner
Akcam, the antithesis of true scholarship?)
The better question to ask is, if Akcam were a real scholar, why is he engaging in such
unscholarly work as tracking someone down, instead of committing himself to find the
irrefutable evidence that the Ottoman government set about to exterminate the Armenians?
(Of course, such would not necessarily make him a real scholar either, because he would be
working to affirm a pre-arranged conclusion, the opposite of the way a respectable scholar
I remember other aspects of Akcam’s more aggressive article, but I’ll bring up
only one more: Taner Akcam claimed that I, Holdwater, called Armenians “rodents.”
I remember thinking, that was way below the belt... even for Taner Akcam. Of course,
I noticed there was no source. That was one whopper of an accusation.
That kind of thinking would be so in contrast to my character, it simply left me
speechless. As I have written elsewhere, I was brought up to look upon Armenians as
my brothers and sisters. My parents never said a single negative word about
Armenians, ever. Many Turks have written me since, and I can easily conclude I am
not an isolated example; this is a very typical Turkish upbringing.
I love all peoples. Yes, that includes Armenians. I have no hatred in my heart for
anyone, not even those Armenians (and those like Taner Akcam) who totally throw away
their morality, in their dishonest genocide affirming pursuit. (As Admiral Mark
Bristol, and perhaps Mr. T, I may pity them; but I certainly don’t hate them.)
I have received the nastiest, most racist letters from Armenian readers, exhibiting
the same mentality that we often see in hateful Armenian forums, and I have always
replied civilly, hoping to reach out to their humanity. I have written many pages
for the TAT site, and I believe even Armenian readers (save for the loopiest ones)
are aware I have no malicious feelings toward the Armenian people, whatsoever. Quite
the contrary; I am a humanist, and I have the warmest feelings toward Armenians.
(Thanks to my upbringing, and helped, of course, by wonderful Armenians I have met
along the way.)
Even if I were capable of hating the extremists among Armenians, I would stop
myself. The reason: I am fully aware that once I sink into the snake pit of hatred,
I will become no better than them. That is when they will have won.
What I don’t like is dishonesty. There is a world of difference between being
against a ferocious falsehood such as the “Armenian genocide,” and being, as
Akcam worded his headline, “anti-Armenian.”
Of course, what extremist Armenians and their supporters are unethically capitalizing on
is that we often think of Holocaust deniers as neo-Nazi types; their struggle against what
is an obvious genocide often derives from anti-Jewish feelings. But there is a world of
difference between the very real Holocaust and the evidence-challenged “Armenian
genocide.” What these dishonest “patriots” and their prejudiced supporters are
attempting to do, of course, is to try and stifle debate. It was bad enough to brand
contra-genocide believers as “deniers”; now the buzzword of choice is becoming “racist.”
(The mentality goes across-the-board, even affecting those on the academic level; for
example, in PBS’s “Current” Magazine, Prof. Peter Balakian actually likened
Prof. Justin McCarthy to a “white
But it is not good enough for Taner Akcam to simply encourage the nut jobs in his flock to
call me a racist; he has to point to some kind of “evidence,” and thus he tells the
nuts that I have called Armenians “rodents,” without providing a source.
(Bear in mind I can’t prove Akcam has written this, as the essay I believe I read has
been removed. But ask yourselves: before Akcam got his piece[s] through, there was no
mention anywhere that I had called Armenians “rodents.” But after this news debuted,
the fanatical flock zeroed in on this sensationalistic “rodents” point, and it has
been reproduced all over. One even decided to change the word into “rats.” Where did
they get the idea from, all of a sudden?)
I searched for the word “rodents” in the TAT site, to see if Akcam may have actually
based this charge on anything; is it possible that he got it from the “Armenian
Psychology” page, which describes the famous “Lemming Effect”? An article written by someone else, and that
happened to include the word “rodents”?
The idea here was that genocide-obsessed Armenians mindlessly and religiously play
follow-the-leader, without capacity for individual thought. I had come up with a cute, and
now actually rarely used (when I began the site, and was outraged to discover the
massiveness of Armenian propaganda, there was more flippancy to my tone) phrase to
describe the phenomenon, “Armeni-Lemmings,” which of course would not describe
all Armenians; only the irrational genocide fanatics. We could have as easily been talking
about another group from the wild, exhibiting similar characteristics, assuming that there
was a psychological term named after them, such as birds mindlessly following each other
in a pattern, or a school of fish.
The idea was, as Professor Norman Itzkowitz insightfully put
it: "[A]ll of this ethnic conflict business I think we have to understand at
the bottom is irrational; it has nothing to do with rationality. They don't want to
know anything, and they will not take the time to inform themselves about what is going
I don’t know whether this is where Akcam came up with the notion that I have called
Armenians “rodents,” but if so, I am at a loss to imagine how he could earn our
contempt in greater fashion.
When Marmaduke Picktthall took
apart Arnold Toynbee's Blue Book in an
article for The New Age (December 16, 1915, Vol. XVIII. No. 7), he wrote::
I have never been a hater of Armenians; I had always hoped, with Mr. Toynbee, that
they and other Christian populations would contribute to the progress and
regeneration of the Turkish Empire. It has always struck me as
horrible that Greeks and Syrian Christians, no less than Kurds and Muslim Arabs,
should regard that race as vermin: it amounts to that.
And I must say that I have never met a Turk who took that view
of them; for the Turk they are the millet-i-sadikeh (the loyal sect),
most favoured in old days, which has turned against its patrons and become an enemy.
While putting up this addendum, allow me to add that weeks
after this response to Akcam appeared, Akcam has written another Holdwater-related
essay featured in the "Blogian" site, entitled "Shoot the
Messenger." You see, he is now the innocent messenger in line to get
hurt by crazy fanatics. This is the only idea that he has ripped off from my
message, while naturally ignoring all the rest, still repeating his same falsehoods.
I have been told that a Turkish publication, Yeni Aktuel, has also featured
an Akcam article, where Akcam basically says that he is in fear for his llife. In
effect, he pulls the trigger, and then becomes the victim — fittingly, in
traditional "Armenian" style! Frankly, for the moment at least, I have
neither the energy nor the interest to keep rebutting this pathetic soul.
What Akcam was striving for was to drum up memories of
those horrid Nazi propaganda movies, where footage of scurrying vermin was
juxtaposed with Jews. He was trying to incite the less stable Armenian fanatics;
Akcam was telling them in barely concealed “code” to “Go get this guy.”
In other words: Taner Akcam designed to cause terror. What a reminder that
there are times when it can be difficult to shake one's roots.
And one need not have a terrorist background in order to engage in this kind of
practice. Once I was corresponding with Dr. Dennis Papazian, with cc’s to a
professorial Armenian-American woman and two genocide scholars. Suddenly, I received
a message from the hateful Armenian-American doctor from Chicago who operates the “turkishdenial”
web site, asking me whether I owned a gun. Now why would the likeliest suspect in
this group of four have shared my letter with the nut job? Similarly, Dr. Richard
Hovannisian reportedly called his fellow UCLA colleague, Dr. Stanford Shaw, a “criminal,”
inciting the fanatics to harass Shaw (some bombed his house), ultimately turning
Shaw into a nervous wreck, and forcing his retirement.
Hitler could not afford to get his hands directly soiled on his rise to power, so he
created the S.A. in 1924 to conduct his violence and terror for him. Similarly,
these Dashnak “professors” (and their Turkish lackey), can’t afford to overtly
blemish their respectability; fortunately for them, there is no shortage of the
fanatical faithful that they can resort to, in order to carry out their campaigns of
We’ll sum up what else Taner Akcam has wrought with his move later on. Let’s now
address a few points from his AGOS articles.
Taner Akcam has quoted extensively from a July 27, 2005 Yeni Safak newspaper “interview”
(in my book, an interview would be in question and answer format; I supplied information,
but I was not interviewed for this article), “The Mysterious American Who Drives the
My idea was simply to tell the Turks of Turkey to WAKE UP. I didn’t share anything about
my personal life, save for (at the journalist’s insistence) a couple of throwaway
tidbits. There was embellishment in the article; I suppose the journalist, whom I happened
to like a lot, felt the article would have been boring otherwise. Please do not take this
article, and its quotations, at face value; it served to disenchant me, and one may
understand why I have not granted an interview since.
Isn’t it just like Taner Akcam to go to a secondhand source, in an attempt to shed light
on me... when there are so many words I have written myself that he could have
easily attempted to take out of context; when I shed light on him, I mainly go directly to
the source: Taner Akcam. (It is his research I target, not his personal life — save for
his terror background, which is relevant to his lack of character.) Secondhand sources,
that is, “hearsay,” is what Akcam and his ilk have largely relied upon, to prove their
Let’s focus on this paragraph:
While afraid to disclose his own name because his peace will be
disturbed, Holdwater does not hold back from publishing the photographs of intellectuals
such as Halil Berktay and Müge Göcek... and parading them as targets in his articles
full of animosity and hatred. It is quite difficult to understand how someone who is
afraid of being attacked can organize such ruthless campaigns of belligerence against
How does one define “organize”? I am not aware of having organized anyone to go out
and antagonize Berktay and Gocek. Is Akcam suggesting I operate as a sort of ANCA,
instructing like-minded others to send faxes and letters, and operating “ruthless
campaigns of belligerence”?
The page for Gocek, for example, may be accessed here.
What I am doing is primarily focusing on her statements and “facts,” to expose her
propagandistic dishonesty. Berktay, too; when he makes dumb statements such as “In
1915, Anatolia was unknown by the Turks,” naturally I have to call this “intellectual”
on his own brand of propaganda.
My only concern is for the truth. When people distort the truth in order to serve a
propagandistic agenda, and lie in bed with the adversaries of their country, of course
they will earn my animosity. They should earn the animosity of any honorable person. But I
certainly have no “hatred” for anyone.
By the way, is Akcam suggesting people who are dishonest should never be criticized,
because someone may physically go after them? And among the “Fascist Turks,” what kind
of educated, English-speaking TAT reader would seriously contemplate going after Berktay
or Gocek? Furthermore, if normally apathetic and hatred-free Turks can’t bring
themselves to make even the most minimal efforts to defend their national honor, how many
would actually consider committing acts of violence?
And lastly, these opportunistic Turks were already being exposed for the comforting of
their nation’s adversaries well before TAT came into existence, as with this 2000 example regarding Berktay. This is one where
Berktay appears to have claimed only one to ten thousand Muslims were killed in the
First World War, instead of some 2.7 million.
I haven’t made up anything about the scholarly frauds criticized on TAT, such as
charging them with calling a human group “rodents.” I mainly use their own words to
sink them. As far as photographs, one great thing about the TAT site is that all discussed
personalities, when possible, offer pictures to match the faces. Re-using photographs of
folks like Gocek and Berktay, photographs that have already been made available, does not
offer a “Go get them” instruction in the same fashion of exposing a face characterized
as “anti-Armenian,” for the first time, to a fanatical crowd. (When I use a photo of a
contra-genocide personality, and a genocide fanatic reads that page, does that mean I
would be encouraging harm against the contra-genocide person?) Naturally, Akcam knows all
of this. He will make his awful implications, nevertheless.
I too am among Holdwater’s priority targets. He leads the
campaign against me, along with institutions such as the Assembly of American
Turkish Associations (ATAA) and the Turkish Forum. He publishes articles on his site
which claim that I am a terrorist; that I am responsible of the death of Americans
in Turkey ; and even that I have planned and organized murders of American
civilians. He lists my “terrorist activities” from the years 1974 to 1975,
including precise dates and locations. These amount to nothing more than ordinary,
small-scale arrests during student demonstrations of the era, which didn’t even
make the press at the time.
There is a world of difference between exposing what a propagandist and scholarly
fraud that Taner Akcam is, and “leading a campaign” against him. Where is this
campaign? Again, am I supposed to be operating as ANCA?
The purpose of the TAT site if to present truthful information. Nothing more. Akcam
can’t stand the truth, so he must make unfounded accusations.
The articles he is referring to were written by others; primarily Mustafa Artun (“From
Terrorism to Armenian Propagandist:
The Taner Akcam Story,” 2001.) Of course I am going to publish articles that
are going to expose Akcam’s shifty personality, particularly if the articles
appear to be responsibly written.
The only major time I got “personal” with Akcam on TAT is when he made unfounded
allegations against the TAT site. The result was Taner Akcam: A Shameful Liar. Here, we looked closer at
the Artun article, where we learned at least one fact (regarding Akcam’s prison sentence) was more truthful about Akcam
than Akcam has been about Akcam. But I wound up downplaying Akcam’s terrorist
period from the 1970s, because I don't have much information regarding the group he
belonged to, DEV-YOL. (And unlike Robert Jay Lifton, I am going to try and avoid making definitive
conclusions about something so serious, based upon just one source.) It is not so
difficult to determine, however, that DEV-YOL was indeed involved in terroristic
activities, likely Soviet-backed, in an effort to destabilize Turkey during those
turbulent times. Naturally, America was this leftist organization’s enemy, and
Akcam was a key component of this organization. (Lazy Turkish journalists ought to
dig into Akcam’s old articles; Artun wrote: “...as the editor of DEV-YOL's
magazine, he [Akcam] wrote numerous articles exhorting DEV-YOL militants to engage
in violence to bring down ‘the oligarchy’, to punish ‘the fascists’, and to
get rid of ‘American imperialism.’")
What I have done, as the reader may ascertain with a study of the page (where the
links for all of the following have been provided), is largely disregard the 1970s
period, as far as confirming Akcam’s terroristic past. Corroboration of Akcam’s
terrorist status comes from Akcam himself. He admitted having collaborated with
Abdullah Ocalan’s PKK from 1981-1984, a terrorist organization responsible for
over ten times the toll of 9/11. Akcam further corroborated his involvement in a
Canadian radio interview, albeit indirectly, when we learned the PKK tried to kill
him in Germany. Akcam also belonged to another (likely Kurdish) group with Abdullah
Ocalan, ADYOD (1975), the intentions of which were probably not peaceful in nature.
While we must pause before accepting the word of a terrorist at face value, Ocalan
has accused Akcam of having much blood on his hands.
It doesn’t take too much intelligence to guess who might
have passed to Holdwater the police records of these insignificant arrests, whose
dates even I had forgotten.
Unfounded conspiracy theories aside, I found them on the Internet; it was as simple
as that. And for God’s sake! We’re only talking about three relevant entries,
here. Note how the author of these entries, whose information probably is not as
reliable as Artun’s, disagrees with Artun on the DEV YOL issue. (Scroll up on this
link for the Artun article.)
Once I was arrested for an issue regarding the Cyprus landing.
As the Student Association, we were distributing authorized leaflets against the
[Turkish] military invasion of Cyprus .
“Invasion”? Did not Greek Cypriot violence and massacres against the Turkish
minority in hopes of “enosis” (union) with Greece lead to the 1960 Treaty of
Guarantee, enabling the mother countries to protect their respective minorities? The
Turks thus exercised their legal right in 1974 to intervene, in order
to prevent the Turkish Cypriots from getting exterminated, as the coup leader admitted was his goal (in 1981). How
remarkable that the welfare of Akcam’s “own” people meant, and still mean,
nothing to him.
In addition, whoever transferred to Holdwater the information about my arrests forgot to
send him my photograph. For a long time, therefore, Holdwater represented me on his site
by a photograph of a PKK member.
Once again, no one transferred this information, and even if someone had, they would not
have been obligated to provide a photograph. As for the wrong photograph, Taner Akcam is
well aware that it was removed immediately, and not after “a long time”; I had written
him on March 2004 (See “Open Letter Number Three” on this page): “I did away with that photograph the day I read your
letter. My intention is never to falsely represent you, as that is what separates those
such as myself from those you have become so warmly chummy with.”
I had no interest either in his writings or in his website—until
he took on a key role in the campaign against me.
Let us all then raise our voices in unison to thank Taner Akcam for corroborating what a
scholarly fraud he is. As Prof. McCarthy wrote:
“Uncomfortable facts, facts that disagree with one's preconceptions and prejudices
must be considered, not avoided or ignored: Any book on the history of the Turks
and the Armenians that does not include the history of the Turks who were killed by
Armenians cannot be the truth. This is obvious.” In order to get at the truth, a
genuine scholar looking into Turco-Armenian matters would hungrily examine the many
diverse and honest historical sources featured on the TAT site. Naturally, what Akcam is
trying to get away with here is the notion that any facts getting in the way of his vile
propaganda should be dismissed, exactly as he attempted when he sized up Guenter Lewy’s
invaluable book as “not a work to bother with.”
One of Holdwater’s important arguments in this campaign was that a
complaint should be filed with American immigration authorities, denouncing me as a “terrorist.”
Now, I don’t know if he actually did such a thing.
Naturally, there was no “campaign” against such small potatoes as Taner Akcam; the
three bodies he has accused (the others being ATAA and the Turkish Forum) work
independently of each other (at least TAT has certainly operated independently); Akcam is
attempting to inflate his importance. Please consult the “Shameful Liar” page to get a
better understanding of Akcam's “campaign” fantasy. And while I certainly have
wondered how an ex-terrorist and communist got past immigration authorities, I would
consider such “snitching” to be dishonorable, as much as Akcam might have difficulty
in understanding the concept.
Taner Akcam informs us that he “had his prison sentence annulled
with changes made to the Turkish Criminal Code in 1991 and also has a document stating he
has a ‘clean record.’”
poster girl: Patty Hearst as
"Tania," committing armed robbery, after
being brainwashed by the SLA.
Obviously Akcam and others in the position of advocating or
participating in armed struggle against Turkish “fascism” benefited from what sounds
like a declared amnesty policy; otherwise Akcam could never have returned to Turkey,
having escaped from prison as he did. Yet it seems to me that there is a world of
difference between letting bygones be bygones in a positive national effort to forge
ahead, and presenting oneself as being guilty of nothing more than the innocent activities
“of leafletting and postering,” as Akcam sarcastically
wrote of his “crimes.” The Artun article tells us, for
example, that DEV-YOL militants “set up a so-called ‘liberated zone’ in the town
of Fatsa on the Black Sea coast ... for several months before being routed by the security
forces.” They outperformed the Symbionese Liberation Army (the militants who had
kidnapped Patty Hearst in 1974, along with committing robberies and murder, in their
violent struggle against the “fascist” United States) a good many steps better.
... I did mention Holdwater and the campaign in an article I wrote on the detention.
[See “A Shameful Campaign,” cited above.] Holdwater wrote a 30-page rebuttal,
full of lies, insults and attacks.
This must be “A Shameful Liar” that Akcam is complaining about. (Which is one
long page, not thirty.) The reader may determine where the “lies” are, since
Akcam has not presented a single example.
Interestingly, since Akcam admits to having read the “Shameful Liar” page, how
highly dishonest of him to keep making the same contentions, such as the mistaken
photograph being kept for a long time, the “campaign” against him, and ignoring
his self-confessed PKK connection. If one makes a claim or a charge, and these
claims/charges are countered, it is very dishonorable to ignore the explanations and
to keep on making the same claims/charges.
Taner Akcam ends his piece by scolding me for removing the name of the one whose
identity I had a responsibility to protect, as such enters the realm of “distortion and alteration,” and that he was “rectifying the alteration... made on a document presented to the
public.” Is he trying to tell us the copy I had put up on the site was
taken from public records... instead of the private and original copy that was used?
Naturally, the letter would have never been put up in the first place had I been
aware of its public retrievability. But this fellow is going to be so low as to
grasp at whatever advantage he thinks he possesses, further writing, “As you may know, we scholars don’t particularly appreciate the
alteration of documents. Such distortion is an occupation reserved for the Turkish
Historical Society.” Brother!
The above cartoon appeared in Turkey's Cumhuriyet
The character in the white hood, so perfectly representative of
pro-Armenian extremists who love to make unfounded charges of
"racism," says to the effect: "Would a democratic person
offer thoughts without revealing his real identity? We will
immediately expose such a person."
“Attacking others, and insulting them, while concealing your own
name, does not fit moral conduct at all,” Akcam concludes, now having the
audacity to lecture us on what is “moral.” His last line: “Believe
me, I am still quite curious as to why you think that I, and many others in my position,
do not deserve a right you so readily claim for yourself.”
Of course, Taner Akcam is not such a dope that he does not know the answer to the question
he poses. But let’s make sure there is no misunderstanding:
1) Concealing one’s name does not automatically mean that one can write things with
impunity. How one conducts oneself is entirely a matter of character. If one is honest to
begin with, writing anonymously is not going to make a bit of difference. Conversely, if
one is dishonest to begin with, one will feel free to mislead even when one chooses to
reveal one’s name.
We don’t need to look far for examples of when Akcam has practiced mendacity. A dramatic
example was when Taner Akcam, under his own name, actually stated in the 2006 PBS Debate
show: “Muslims killing ... by the Armenians, it is a legend. It is not true...”
Assuming the former PKK collaborator is Kurdish, Akcam succeeded here in betraying his
own. While the figure is overstated, the 1968 anti-Turkish book, "The Kurds,"
tells us that the Armenians were responsible for the destruction of at least 600,000
Meanwhile, one would be hard-pressed to find anything on the TAT site that is not solidly
backed up by reliable evidence. (Mainly, sources without reason to be untruthful. In fact,
here is a recent page examining a section of
Akcam’s “Shameful” book; check out whether his mostly Dadrian claims hold
up.) There are times I have been wrong, of course; but readers are aware from the
addendums that I often admit to having made a mistake before putting up the corrections.
The TAT site has been prepared with an accent upon total honesty; I would be a fool to do
so otherwise, realizing that I am operating from the disadvantage of not having disclosed
my identity, and defending an ethnic group with a devastating negative image and one
already perceived in this prejudiced world as dishonest.
Knuckleheaded propagandists only get theirs after they have been shown to be deceitful or
amateurish. Akcam can charge this site with “lies” all he desires, but I don’t see
him offering specifics. (Akcam had a perfect chance to show me up, once he had accepted
membership to a Yahoo group I happened to be a part of. Yet he turned tail so fast, the
members could almost see his smoke. If he is so certain of his facts, why did he refuse to
seize the opportunity?)
2) I only wish the atmosphere of genocide politics would allow for my not needing to hide
behind a moniker. We all know what happened in the 1970s-80s, after the Turks finally
began to speak up in the wake of global Armenian terrorism. The Armenians and the genocide
scholars began their smear campaigns, intimidating
the real historians away. Activist Armenians do not wish for their genocide myth to be
exposed, and thus embark on age-old bullying
tactics to stifle debate. By contrast, Taner Akcam and the “many others in [his]
position” operate with the backing of a compliant world.
Let’s take a quick look at what happened here, after Akcam’s AGOS articles were
translated into English by Nazim Dikbas: a campaign of the most vile character
assassination and hatred one can imagine, as Akcam knew all too well would take
Two key participants to date fueling this campaign of hatred have been Simon
Maghakyan, who also goes by the name of Blogian, and Ruben Izmailyan.
These two poor souls are the kind that the Dashnak historian Mikael Varandian could
have had in mind when he wrote of “the seed of the poisonous flower of racism
and nationalism... sown and carefully cultivated in the minds of the (Armenian)
youth.” The scary thing is, Varandian wrote his words back in 1910 (“The
Rebirth of a Nation and Our Mission,” p. 144). Like many other young
Armenians, Maghakyan and Izmailyan have been taught, as Varandian further put it, “a
rabid and delirious form of nationalism,” appearing “in the form of
inordinate pride and arrogance,” producing “scandalous excesses,
obviously found in the most intense pleasure in indulging in the most irreconcilable
scorn and hatred of the Turks.”
Izmailyan has it a little more under control (he was spotlighted on TAT as an
Armenian-American evidently diaspora-bullied,
forcing the cancellation of a long planned Turkish-Armenian musical event; it’s
jarring to learn of him now in the role of intimidator), but Maghakyan is far too
gone into mind trip-ville.
Both are young (Izmailyan is slated to graduate from Brown University in 2009;
Maghakyan is a recent transplant from Armenia, aged 17 at entry into the USA in
2003, to begin in earnest the waging of his “patriotic” war. Soghoman Tehlirian,
Talat Pasha’s assassin, was 17 as well when he betrayed his Ottoman nation in 1914
and crossed over to the Russians, eager to practice his own brand of patriotism),
bringing to mind how the minds of Armenian youth are poisoned by “the
fetish-culture of diasporan Armenians,” as described in Meline Toumani's “The Burden of Memory.”
“In this culture, many diaspora Armenians are reared to hate Turkey with a
fervor that seems completely at odds with their daily lives as typical — even
liberal — American citizens... often it is the
later-generation descendants who take up the cause most ardently, suggesting
that something besides a simple interest in justice fuels their behavior.”
Maghakyan is a rising star among Armenian
extremists, fiercely on the front lines of the Armenians’ beloved genocide. For
example, he sent an angry letter to The Jewish Advocate, criticizing them for
identifying a photo as “alleged victims of the Armenian genocide.” He was
praised by fellow extremists Harut Sassounian, Appo Japparian, and Prof. Dennis
Papazian (“Good show Simon,” Papazian wrote; “we have to mock them”)
for Maghakyan’s exercise in hysteria. The fact of the matter is that “Armenian
genocide” photos are undocumented, even Armin Wegner’s; some Armenian sites have sunk so low as to use
documented photographs of Ottoman Muslims slaughtered by Armenians, in order to
represent Armenian victims. While I don’t know which photograph The Jewish
Advocate made use of, if the source of the photograph cannot be verified, an
ethical journal must use a word such as “alleged.” The “journalists” Harut
Sassounian and Appo Japparian have no concept of such ethical practices; their
genocide must be affirmed before all else. Unfortunately, Dr. Papazian is no
different; a real professor would need to ask many questions of an unverified
photograph of the dead (such as, who are the victims, who killed them, and why). The
last thing Dr. Papazian wishes to serve as in this out-of-control and genocide-sappy
bunch is a voice of conscience, because he too is just another propagandist.
(Maghakyan’s goal is to become a “professor.” He has one fine role model.)
Taner Akcam actually solicited this young kid (Maghakyan may have reached the age of
21; but he has a long way to go before becoming a man), working in cahoots for their
exercise in character assassination. (Maghakyan wrote, “Prof. Akcam told me
about this finding on April 15, 2007 and promised me to send the English version as
soon as it was published in Turkey’s Agos.”) It is truly astounding, not to
mention so very embarrassing, that Genocideland’s aptly nicknamed “village
idiot,” this self-professed “scholar,” would so openly collaborate on his
latest terror campaign with such a young fideist. (And let’s keep in mind the
audience for such a fanatic are other bent-out-of-their-minds zealots; Akcam
knowingly chose a most dangerous audience to appeal to. In effect, he instructed his
more radical followers to hitch a ride on the bullet of the gun that Akcam fired.)
Naturally, Maghakyan pulled no punches, calling Akcam’s victim an “anti-Armenian
idiot” and “one of the most anti-Armenian Turkish-Americans on Earth and
the webmaster of tallarmeniantale.com, a hate website that denies the Armenian
Genocide and compares Armenians to rodents.” The kid is out of control,
further writing that TAT’s webmaster has “an unbelievably ‘wonderful’
hate for the Armenian people.”
He is engaging in a not-so-hidden “Go get him” message of his own; has he no
comprehension that sort of language can put him in, as he put it, “hot waters”?
And here we go again with the “rodents” charge, as Akcam guided his flock:
“...[T]he covert webmaster of tallarmeniantale.com, a website that denies the
destruction of over a million Christian Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War
I. Gumen has been using the pseudo name “Holdwater” in denying the Armenian
Genocide and comparing Armenians to rodents.”
I haven’t the heart to tell the kid that the Armenians themselves put the toll of
Ottoman-Armenians at “more than
200,000“ (at the Preliminary Peace Conference in Paris, 1919). That is
considerably less than what I regard as the true figure, around half a million. But
there is simply no way of reasoning with someone who has gone off the edge. For
example: a Turkish reader reminds Maghakyan that the recently discovered cave with
the mass grave said to be of Armenian victims has been confirmed by European
scientists to have been a Roman site. Maghakyan exhibits his future professorial
chops by spending not a second wondering whether the claim might have merit, but by
responding that the Turk is a “racist.”
Apparently, anyone who says anything against the Armenian genocide religion is a “racist,”
according to Maghakyan, blissfully unaware that anyone with objectivity can clearly
see where the real hatred and racism is coming from.
(If we follow Maghakyan’s brand of reasoning, when the United Nations' highest
court in the Hague, the International Court of Justice, declared in February 2007
that what Serbia and Bosnian Serbs did to the Bosnian Muslims, save for Srebrenica
[where only the Bosnian Serbs were blamed for the act of genocide], did not
constitute a “genocide,” then should we ask whether the Hague officials were “racists”?)
Simon Maghakyan is obviously an extremely intelligent person (sporting a near 4.0
grade average; only a few years in the USA, and his English is already much better
than Taner Akcam’s ever will be), and what a dreadful, dreadful shame that he has
allowed himself to become so psychologically warped. He also has no moral
recognition of the hurt caused by his vicious insults, relying totally upon Taner
Akcam’s speculative conclusions, and the harmful repercussions that could well
only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
On June 11, 2007, hetq.am (the site for the Investigative Journalists of Armenia)
published Ruben Izmailyan’s “Internet Slander's Identity Revealed by Favorite
Victim.” (Shouldn’t this Ivy League University student be aware that the word
needed to read “slanderer”? More importantly, when in print, the word is libel, not
Let me say off the bat that Taner Akcam (given that he likely agrees with this essay’s
title) once again overstates the case if he really thinks he is my “favorite victim.”
Anyone who engages in deceit or ineptitude regarding the “Armenian genocide” is in my
sights. If Akcam is going to make more of a spectacle of himself than others, naturally he
will receive more attention. But Akcam can’t help himself; as his old friend Abdullah
Ocalan indicated, Akcam is too much of a
“showman.” (“He wants to be on the front pages all the time.”)
Izmailyan faithfully follows Akcam’s “Go get him” lead with: “Besides spreading
anti-Armenian rhetoric and at times comparing Armenians to rodents...”
“...[T]he site is also famous for belittling and vilifying some of the most notable
scholars and individuals that have spoken or written about it. Holocaust survivor and
Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Weisel, historians Richard Hovhanissian [sic], Vahakn
Dadrian, genocide scholar Israel Charny and many others have been subject to accusations
of bias, incompetence, bribery, promoting ‘Armenian propaganda’ and other similar
Note the clever “political” positioning of Elie Wiesel at the top of the list, as if
Wiesel has been targeted anywhere near the level of the others mentioned. Regardless of
how wonderful and revered a personality Wiesel might otherwise be, if he lends his
substantive voice to Armenian genocide propaganda
productions, of course he is going to be called upon it. Particularly because he is so
revered, he is going to be listened to far more seriously than the average genocide
spokesman. If Wiesel irresponsibly refuses to conduct impartial homework and unwittingly
contributes to prejudice (by unjustly equating Turks with Nazis), then not criticizing
him, because of his saintly reputation, would be the ultimate in hypocrisy. (Naturally,
what Izmailyan is slyly banking on is that anyone who dares criticize Wiesel must be
regarded as a “Nazi” in his own right.)
As far as criticism of the others, what is being said? That, without offering explanation,
someone such as Vahakn Dadrian wears army boots? No; it is their statements and
research that display their “bias, incompetence... promoting ‘Armenian
propaganda’ and other similar misdeeds.” (I don’t recall accusing any of these
gentlemen of “bribery.” But Izmailyan might as well throw that one in there, as well.
What difference does it make?)
Of course, a “patriot” as Izmailyan can’t stand his heroes getting called for the
scholarly frauds that they are. If he had integrity, instead of coming after the
messenger, he would dissect the message. The evidence demonstrating the dishonesty of
those such as Dadrian and Hovannisian is incontestable. Thus, for one as Izmailyan, it
becomes much easier to conduct the familiar smear campaign. (If Izmailyan is so certain of
the validity of his own history, why has he evidently never bothered to criticize TAT’s
historical dissection of these personalities before? Why is he only publicly speaking up
when he feels the identity of TAT’s webmaster has been revealed?)
“But one of the biggest recipients of Holdwater's finger pointing is Taner Akcam
himself, a renown [sic] human rights activist and Professor of History...”
Oh, boy. Taner Akcam, a “human rights activist.” Now I have heard everything. A true
believer in human rights, of course, must never consider one human group to be more
valuable than another; as we covered above, Akcam does not shed a single tear for the
hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Muslims, Jews, and others massacred by the Armenians. And
Taner Akcam is not a “professor” (when he landed his first job in the USA, he was more
correctly a “visiting scholar,” not that Taner Akcam is a scholar, either; how did he
magically become a “professor”? His German Ph.D. surely does not entitle him to
professorial status in Germany), and certainly not a specialist in “history.” (Akcam’s
Dadrian-approved degree was in sociology.)
“Labeling Akcam a ‘former terrorist leader’ and an enemy of America ‘responsible
for the deaths of American citizens’...
These are quotations from the Mustafa Artun article; I have never written either of these two particular
phrases Izmailyan has ascribed to me. How ethical is that? Who does the kid think he is,
Ambassador Morgenthau’s ghostwriter? No wonder we are not surprised when he goes on to
charge that TAT has:
...indiscriminately and shamefully slander[ed] dozens of other individuals including
various historians, academics, politicians, activists, ambassadors and students.
Remember, it’s not libel if it’s true. If these people who have been criticized on TAT
are shown up for their dishonesty with the real facts, the ones engaged in actual libel
are the ones who make unsubstantiated charges as the above.
"It is in our blood to hate the Turks. "
Narek Mesropian, Golos Armenii, August 5, 1997
Dr. Gwynne Dyer beautifully wrote back in 1976:
The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in
argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and
emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography
of the diaspora today.
What can one do with someone as “convinced and emotionally committed” as
Ruben Izmailyan? Give him the real facts, and he would not want to know about
them... any more than the religious fanatic who cannot stomach the fact that
dinosaurs did not co-exist with humans. This is why he believes he has the license
to write such character-assassinating statements as the above.
Izmailyan then goes on to try and discredit Samuel Weems and his book, “Armenia:
The [sic] Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State.” Naturally, Izmailyan
has likely never read the book, not that it would have mattered. Many of Weems’
claims within this book, of course, were based upon the history of Richard
Hovannisian. Izmailyan then attempts to discredit the TAT site by providing Weems as
a primary example of the Western sources used. (“Considering that Mr. Weems is
one of Holdwater's favorite ‘scholars’ it is easy to see the substance behind
Tall Armenian Tale.”) Funny. Samuel Weems is only one of the countless voices
featured on this site that turn the Armenians’ genocide on its ear.
Yet there is one big difference with Weems. He served as I have been serving. That
is, he was the very rare researcher who gathered the facts and then “politically”
analyzed them. (He performed historical analysis as well, of course.) This does not
make Weems the typical example of the Western sources used on TAT. In order to
determine whether Weems was being truthful, one does not simply take his opinions,
any more than one should simply take my opinions. What the honest person does is
look at the sources Weems used to back up his claims. For the most part, Weems did
what I have been doing: mainly utilizing the sources that had no reason to lie for
the Turks, and frequently despised the Turks. This is in marked contrast to the bulk
of the sources used in Armenian propaganda, who had every reason to lie for the
Again, the idea is to smear; such is a far easier course than to demonstrate why
Weems, as a devoted Baptist, Christian scholar and Southerner (i.e., a far less
likely person to defend Turks), would have been motivated to write his book. Did he
get rich? From what I understand, he got much poorer. (It is not as though
HarperCollins was his publisher.) Weems’ only motivation was to tell the truth,
and while he may not have possessed a Ph.D., his approach to scholarship was leagues
beyond the pro-genocide professors Izmailyan feels duty-bound to defend.
“Thus since Holdwater is no longer anonymous he can not spread unfounded lies
and harass people any more.”
Let me address Ruben directly, sure as he is to be reading this page (and since I’d
like to believe he hasn’t gone off the deep end completely); you have done your
personal honor a severe disservice, by penning this dishonest and defamatory piece.
You cannot make statements such as “unfounded lies” and “comparing Armenians
to rodents” without providing the evidence. And even if my identity should be
definitely confirmed one day, how in the world could you possibly think that would
make a difference, as far as keeping the truth from being told?
Stop being a “professional patriot,” and start being a “human being.”
Remember: once you lose your honor as a man, you have nothing.
has Taner Akcam Wrought?
One can imagine Taner Akcam suffered from a momentary incontinence, with the joy of his
discovery; his genocide network was well in place to perform such research, and perhaps
the one who brought him over to the USA, Dennis Papazian, asked his Holocaust Memorial
Museum friend, Set Momjian, to look into these records. Regardless, Akcam won a victory
with this linkage to my identity, and no doubt he felt that his Dashnak masters would
appreciate him all the more... perhaps making a difference with the Armenian foundation
funds and honorariums he receives from traveling around, with deep-pocketed organizations
such as the Zoryan Institute paying all of his expenses, and dutifully spreading Armenian
But what has he achieved, really?
If the webmaster of this site actually is the one he has fingered, then we have learned:
1) Born and bred in the United States, Holdwater has no connection with the Turkish
government; what hateful forces would like to portray as such an “evil” and Stalinist
government, practicing mind-control over simple-minded Turks, would have had absolutely no
effect on the mind of Holdwater. His conclusions were obtained from independent research
(mainly constituting English-language sources) with genuine objectivity, since the nation
of Turkey has absolutely no hold upon him. It goes without saying that Holdwater would not
be a right-wing, nationalistic, “fascist” type. (Taner Akcam himself wrote it: “Ignorant
as Holdwater is about Turkey...”)
2) Holdwater does what he does for no glory, and for no money; his only guiding principle
is the furtherance of the truth.
(And I will state categorically the above points apply exactly to the “real”
Holdwater, as well.)
In other words, what Taner Akcam has done is legitimize Holdwater.
And how could Taner Akcam’s chosen victim be possibly more hurt than he already has
been, with the tarnishing of his name and reputation, what with calling Armenians “rodents,”
and with being such a “racist”?
Particularly if these kinds of attacks continue, did Taner Akcam have the intelligence to
weigh what the outcome could be?
I don’t know... it just seems to me that when a person has nothing more to lose, then
there would be no reason not to come out officially. Then the sky would be the limit, and
the (Hai) tide could possibly begin to turn.
All of this as opposed to working in the shadows, writing the truth as a phantom voice,
with understandable limits upon
I think we can safely begin moving away from Akcam’s clownish image as the “village
idiot” of Genocideland, and start considering his entry into the realm of serious
idiocy. He did not consider that his actions could trigger a chain of events
seriously hurting “Hai Tahd,” rather than helping it.
He probably thought his revelation would have me, assuming he had me pegged
correctly, put tail between the legs and disappear. I suppose the fighting spirit
well in evidence from my writings had escaped his level of intellect.
And let’s examine the ultimate possibility of the opening of, what appears on the
surface to be, Akcam’s Pandora’s Box. With all of these not-so-hidden “Go get
him” messages that Akcam has initiated, what if a fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth
genocide believer takes it upon himself to follow in the footsteps of the criminal
fedayis so irresponsibly glorified in Armenian propaganda?
I have it in good word one of the incidents wearing Prof. Stanford Shaw down was
that he even became apprehensive about visiting the UCLA restroom. There were times
Prof. Richard Hovannisian would actually spit on Prof. Shaw. (Let’s add the
word “alleged” to that sentence, just in case; but thanks to my impeccable
source, I have no trouble believing the story.) Now, if a “respectable professor”
can’t manage to contain himself and acts so uncivilly, how could the mad dog
genocide fanatics out there be kept under control?
It just boggles the mind that Taner Akcam would have been so outrageously
irresponsible as to let his speculation out of the bag, presented as an actual fact.
But we can’t expect someone with the grisly past of Taner Akcam to exercise such
delicacy of thought.
Yet, one never knows. And if such a grim scenario should come into play, did Taner
Akcam actually stop to consider how far that would set back “Hai Tahd”?
Now, what if his speculation was wrong?
Did Taner Akcam ever bother to consider, by presenting his finding as such an
absolute fact and not the speculation that it actually is, the ramifications he
would be personally responsible for? By accusing someone of being a racist “anti-Armenian,”
he really set himself up for a big character defamation charge. That would only be
the beginning, what with the other damage he has caused, influencing death threats
and interference with livelihood. Perhaps Akcam would not be off the hook in any
event, right or wrong.
Taner Akcam would be wise to consider attempting to undo the damage he has caused. A
public apology to his victim would serve as a start.
Any way one looks at it, Taner Akcam has already greatly publicized the TAT site;
wherever the ball lands, the TAT site could get publicized even more, potentially
with the kind of audience that extremist Armenians would dread seeing educated. I
cannot tell you the number of “neutral” people who have written in, thanking me
for helping open their eyes. This site, save for the hopelessly prejudiced, throbs
We know the PKK chillingly turned against their one-time brother-in-arms. The
Dashnaks, finding “loyalty” to be a foreign concept, historically also have been
known to turn against their allies or champions. (Such as President Woodrow Wilson.
The Rev. James Barton. Even Andrew Goldberg, producer of several PBS Armenian
propaganda films, complained of facing the wrath of ungrateful Armenians.) If Akcam
is going to conduct himself so brainlessly, thinking only of short-term gain, his
Dashnak masters could well decide that Akcam has outlived his usefulness.
of Ara Baliozian, June 22, 2007
There is a type of mediocrity who will sell his soul to see his name in print. This is
well known to our editors who operate on the assumption that the views of these
mediocrities are representative of the majority. The truth of the matter is, these
charlatans don’t write what they really think and feel but what will have a better
chance to be printed. If anti-Turkish venom and pro-Armenian crapola have a better
chance than objective, impartial, and critical assessments, they will produce venom
and crapola. As a result, what we see in our weeklies is not a multiplicity of views
but a uniformity of predictable and unreadable nonsense. I know what I am saying
because I was there once; that’s when I was popular with our editors and my things
Could the wonderful Ara Baliozian have had Taner Akcam in mind?
Taner Akcam’s mischief came at a bad time for me; “real life” headaches happened to
take unusual priority, and this baggage hit hard. There are a number of wonderful
contributors to the TAT site, some inadvertently having offered a one-time deal, and
others sharing regularly. Many do not wish their identities revealed, in full knowledge of
how dirtily Akcam’s team plays, as has been all too apparent in this case. Naturally, I
have a responsibility to protect them all, and thus the Akcam development did not make for
Then the Turkish side took this ball and ran away with it. I was startled by that, as
well; the best thing the “nationalists” could have done was to ignore this nonsense
altogether. (Looks like we have learned there is more variety among the Turkish people,
after all.) Naturally, journalists are always on the look-out for a scoop, but come on.
Look at the source of this information... the “Shameful Liar” himself, Taner
Akcam. Simply accepting an Akcam claim without corroboration was very irresponsible. And
the respectful way some of these Turkish newspaper articles treated Akcam, for example,
identifying him as a “historian,” was unbelievable. I only know what I know from the
handful of articles a few people shared with me (I don’t keep track of the Turkish
press), but some of the coverage was really something. One strange example from an Akcam
stronghold (Radikal; the author was Ismet Berkan, "Hedef Gostermek,
Gosterilmek," June 23, 2007) even claimed the TAT site was causing harm to Turkey.
Since “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” the next thing you know, the TAT
site could well be championed by genocide-obsessed Armenians.
In the last few articles I have written, I was becoming increasingly aware of how
repetitious the arguments were becoming. When shedding light on the latest genocide
scholar or organization’s shenanigans, you can see they are simplistically and
thoughtlessly accepting the claims of Armenian propaganda without conducting research of
their own, and thus showing them up becomes an exercise in tedium as well. Researching and
responding to these frauds does not offer much entertainment value, and such are the times
I wonder why I have been going on. One reason is that I am not seeing many others
performing this kind of necessary research, and this is beginning to get upsetting.
Let me quickly add that I don’t mean to say I am the only one at the game. As Sam Weems wrote, “I know a few Turkish Americans
who are true champions for Turkey. Sad truth is that they are too few and they have little
funding to compete against a well-oiled and funded Armenian lobby organization.” (By
the way, I would not classify myself as a champion for Turkey; when Turkey does wrong, I
will not defend Turkey, any more than I would defend America when America does wrong. In a
sense, I am certainly defending Turkey, because Turkey is getting pounded relentlessly by
its haters without adequate defense. But the bottom line is that I’m interested in
defending the truth, not Turkey.) And I certainly have come to know some amazing
Turks/Turkish-Americans who are tirelessly and consistently doing their part. Mainly, the
efforts of these wonderful people boil down to writing defensive letters, in response to
the never-ending anti-Turkish, anti-truth assaults. Letter-writing serves an invaluable
function, but it only goes so far.
What concerns me is that there are almost no analysts out there, at least writing in
the English language. (Mustafa Artun, whomever he is, was a real anomaly among
Turks. And he appears to have stopped after penning just a couple of articles.) The
contra-genocide Turkish sites keep on rehashing the historical facts, which of
course is not unimportant. Some are simply copying and pasting articles of interest,
which is highly useful as well. Yet hardly anyone is performing the important task
of “political” research. And very few are taking on the villains of the genocide
industry for the hateful propagandists that they (the ones speaking for the
Armenians, at any rate) are.
Now a great thing about one of Ruben Izmailyan’s fall guys, Samuel Weems, was that
Weems filled a very necessary void. As mentioned earlier, he performed the hard work
of not just historical research, but original “political” research; he dug up
the facts and analyzed them. Why are there hardly any Turks/Turkish-Americans doing
the same, in regards to "genocide" matters?
(It’s pretty peculiar that non-Turks have become better known for this
vitally-needed role. That includes, to an extent, Turkish-Americans as myself who
have lost touch with the “old country,” or who were never familiar in the first
Since the practically unchallenged genocide industry has become so omnipotent, more
Turks are finally seeing the light and are awakening from their great slumber. Yet
the situation is not that different today than when Sam Weems had written his early
2000s article, “And
Just Where in the World are the Turks?”:
"I am stupefied, and I am wondering where in the world are the Turks? What
is the Turkish government doing? Where in heaven's name is the Turkish Foreign
Service? No one seems to be doing a darn thing in defending truth and the Turkish
interest. If a non-Turk American, like me, can research and find such unbelievable
data so destructive for the Turks' and Turkey's vital interests, I ask myself why in
the world don't the Turks..?"
“It saddens me to see the Turks, sitting back and doing nothing.
I am declaring to every Turk who loves his homeland or to every Turkish-American who
is ready to help his country of origin, to wake up to reality and rid himself or
herself of this corrosive apathy, and of this masochistic sense of self-destruction.”
Yeow. “Corrosive apathy” and “masochistic sense of self-destruction.” Not
pretty words to hear, but so much the truth.
And just to drive home the point, Weems continued:
“If a non-Turk American, like me, can research and find such unbelievable data so
destructive for the Turks' and Turkey's vital interests, I ask myself why in the world
don't the Turks do such research and realize that time is running out for their action
Yes, why don’t they? Why should an educated “good ol’ boy” like Samuel Weems have
spent hours and hours performing such stupendous research? His sole motivation was that he
was fired up from the unbelievable dishonesty of pro-Armenians, and the injustice against
Turkish folk. Why aren’t the “Picnic Turks” fired up? “Why in the world don't
the Turks do such research”??
The TAT site has been around since 2003. You’d think some Turks/Turkish-Americans would
have been inspired to get down and dirty, and to have written the kind of hard-hitting
exposés Samuel Weems used to write, and the kind of articles that may be found on this
site. There may be a few such people, but their output is irregular, and they are not easy
While I was looking into Ruben Izmailyan’s “patriotic” contributions, I was led to a
genocide-defending letter he had written to Brown University’s newspaper. This is how I
accidentally discovered a letter written by Fulya Apaydin and Feryaz Ocakli (entitled, “Nobel-winner
Pamuk thin on political substance,” 11/20/06). I was very impressed with how
articulate and intelligent these two were. My intent is not to single out Fulya Apaydin
and Feryaz Ocakli personally, implying that they are slackers or anything of the kind (we
all have our lives to lead, and some can do more than others); I am merely trying to point
out that there are many highly intelligent Turks who can manage the most proficient
English. Why aren’t at least some of them creating web sites which can feature the
fruits of hardnosed research?
“Even though we hear and witness phenomenal Turkish-American success stories here in
America, and Turks should be proud of that fact, I would say that there are too many
apathetic Turks who may read this and agree, and still do nothing. No person of
Turkish descent should find himself or herself in that dubious unpleasant category. No
true-blooded Turk can be proud of their personal success here in America if they find no
reason to be proud of defending their great nation—Turkey!”
Remarkable, isn’t it, ladies and gentlemen? There are truly so many Turkish-Americans
who have “made it” in the USA, not that one needs to have made millions of dollars to
join in substantially combating the tremendous racism and hatred being directed against
their kind. (Taner Akcam may have developed illusions of grandeur to think there is an
actual “campaign” planned against him, as if there wouldn’t be much bigger fish to
fry for these nonexistent campaign-planners. The real campaign is the one Taner Akcam has
wholeheartedly joined, and one that has been going on for years... presenting the Turks as
the worst people on earth.)
Message to the
My message to Turkish people is this:
1) Study. Then learn some more. The learning process never ends. Become as expert as
you can in the genocide issue, and all the other issues designed to contribute to
anti-Turkish hatred. You have a duty to become a historian in your own right.
2) Do not make the mistake most Armenians make, listening as they do only to their
propagandistic professors. Read everything, not simply what Turkish historians have
3) Do not falsify anything; do not sink to the level of the unethical pro-Armenian
propagandists. Check your facts; don’t be sloppy. If the Turks have done wrong,
don’t hide it. That does not mean you need to go out of your way to emphasize
Turkish wrongdoing, because there are too many others who specialize in that field.
The point is, no whitewashing allowed.
4) Armed with your knowledge, go out and engage. With others, organize. By yourself,
create a web site. Don’t always rehash the cobwebbed old information. Do the
research; the “Armenian genocide” world is vast, and there is no end to the
uncharted waters of prejudice, misinformation and disinformation. Let the world know
about your findings. When you encounter yet another propaganda article by amateurish
or bigoted journalists or historians, let your voice be heard. And not just once or
twice; you must keep at it. When writing letters, take the extra time to dig up
direct contact information for the person(s) involved, rather than the generic “letter
to the editor” e-mail address.
Get off your lazy butts. Don’t expect others to do your fighting for you.
This means you.
Message to the
My Message to Armenian People:
I wish I could be appealing to all Armenians here, but I know too well that the extremist
monomaniacs are simply lost causes. The Armenian people I am referring to are the moderate
and “normal” Armenian people, the ones who keep quiet, like the lazy Turks, but of
course, you keep quiet for different reasons. A) You know the trouble you’re going to be
in for from the looney fanatics if you speak up, and B) Your own “patriotic” side
would prefer to advance Hai Tahd, much as you know what the fanatics are doing is
I know there is a good number of you who know there was no “genocide” from a tragic
time where each side had victims and villains. I know many of you are aware that your
Dadrians, Hovannisians, Balakians and Akcams are not operating from an honest perspective.
If you are a proud Armenian, you’ve got to remember Armenian history did not begin in
1890, with the coming of the A.R.F.; the A.R.F. only cared about themselves, and not about
the Armenian people. Imagine subjecting the innocent Armenian people to Dashnak terror and
robbery, and to massacres by Muslims, incited by Dashnak violence, in order to pull the
Europeans in. It is these criminally-minded who have taken hold of the diaspora, and the
Republic of Armenia. Their terrorist mentality still allows them to commit falsehoods
without blinking an eye, because as the Turk-disliking missionary Cyrus Hamlim wrote (referring to those other terrorists,
the Hunchaks), “Falsehood is, of course, justifiable where murder and arson are.”
The deceitful Dashnaks are impugning Armenian honor. If you are a real Armenian patriot,
it is time for you to embrace what you know is right and good. You have to start speaking
up against the venom that has taken hold of poor souls such as Simon Maghakyan and
countless others, at the helm of these hateful forces in charge.
The Turks do not hate you. Based on my exposure to Turks who have written in, I can
honestly say most Turks have warm feelings toward you, given the centuries of peaceful
coexistence and brotherhood. They don’t care for the maniacs among you, of course, but
even here hatred would be a rare commodity. You can see the lack of hatred even from your
"evil" Turkish government, that has evidently gone to the extent of refusing to
boot out the thousands of Armenians from Armenia who have tried to better their lives in
Turkey, even after their visas have expired. I realize it’s difficult for you to get
over what you have been culturally taught, as Rafael Ishkhanian helpfully spelled out:
"[T]o curse at Muslims and especially at Turks, to talk much about the Armenian
Genocide, and to remind others constantly of the brutality of the Turks are all regarded
as expressions of patriotism.”
But this is wrong, and you know it. Such hatred and racism serve as negative and harmful
energy. You’ve got to get over this religion of hatred, even the small degree that has
seeped into your more reasonable mind. You’ve got to push for love and brotherhood.
These are the positive qualities for humanity.
is the voice of what surely must be the overwhelming majority of Armenian communities
everywhere denouncing such brutality?"
Bruce Laingren (former hostage at the U.S. Embassy
in Tehran, Iran), The Washington Post, July 21, 1983, excerpt from letter to
the editor. (For full letter on this page, click
And as far as your genocide religion, don’t forget what
the rare Armenian-American scholar of integrity said, the amazing Dr. Robert “Hate hurts the hater and
hated” John (truly, a man ahead of his time back in 1984, and still ahead of
“The time has come to stop psychologically damaging ourselves and our children
by ‘Holocaust studies’ and ‘Holocaust museums’...The Armenian, the Jew, or
the African, should not damage their development with a continual conditioning of
hate, neither should spurious guilt be visited upon others. These negative
preoccupations and obsessions are obstructing our evolution.”
Be proud of being an Armenian, but remember: you are a human being first. Your
tribal loyalty must never supersede your humanity. Your honor as a member of the
human family must always take precedence. If you lose your honor, you are nothing.
And if you are really proud of being an Armenian, then you must fight to regain the
Armenian honor that the bullying Dashnaks have appropriated, and trampled under
their feet. This honor includes the recognition of the great crimes the Dashnaks
have committed, not just against fellow Armenians, but against the hundreds of
thousands of non-Christian Armenians that the Dashnaks and others systematically “cleansed.”
These would be from the Ottoman Empire, and later, from the newborn Armenia itself.
Taner Akcam will tell you I am “anti-Armenian,” but Taner Akcam has made a
career out of being wrong. I only wish the best for the Armenian people, but the
best can only come once the Armenians rid themselves of this collective hatred. With
the hatred, the Armenians will remain slaves. Today’s Dashnak leaders, along with
their hired agents such as Akcam, wish only to keep the Armenians in chains... in
order to best serve themselves, no different than the pioneering Dashnaks.
Martin Luther King Jr.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote: “I
have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s greatest stumbling
block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku
Klux Klansmen, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to
At this juncture, the greatest stumbling block to Armenian freedom is not the Ku
Klux Klan type of terror group maintaining a stranglehold on Armenians as a whole,
but the Armenian moderate. Start paying attention to justice rather than “order,”
and then the best will come. The Armenian moderate is the hope of the Armenian
people. If he or she truly loves the Armenian people, the Armenian moderate must
start speaking up.
I once tried to get through to the hermetically-sealed mind of Harut Sassounian with
the following message, and the results were predictable. These inspiring words
closed the 2004 film, HELLBOY:
What makes a man a man?
A friend of mine once wondered
Is it his origins
The way he comes to life
I don’t think so
It’s the choices he makes
Not how he starts things
But how he decides to end them.