The Ethics of Pro-Armenian Genocidists
"To how many of our charlatans I could say, it isn't that I don't believe what you say, you don't believe it either, and the only reason you are saying it is to see if you can fool me and get away with it.
Ara Baliozian, 2007
Why do so many Armenians, and too many of their supporters, willingly engage in outright lying, regarding their genocide obsession? (This is a theme touched upon in an early TAT page, Armenian Scholars' Disregard for the Truth.)
Before we continue, let’s keep in mind two factors. One is, as Alexandre Dumas wisely wrote, “All generalizations are dangerous, even this one.” Because so many Armenians lie when it comes to their genocide obsession, that does not mean all Armenians have a natural tendency to bend the truth. Of course; people are people everywhere, and there are some wonderful, honorable Armenians. (Yet, when it comes to the “genocide,” the honorable Armenians choose to remain quiet, and as we know from genocide-speak, “silence means compliance.” We will refer to this troubling point later.)
The second point is, even though there are too many Armenians who willingly lie for their cause, they still represent the minority of the Armenian people. Most Armenians who fling themselves into the genocide arena are irrationalists who deeply believe in their genocide myth. Here, it would be helpful to note what James Morgan Read wrote in “Atrocity Propaganda, 1914-19 (1941, p. 187): "Lying is an act of conscious deception. Much of British atrocity propaganda was unconscious deception built upon erroneous reports and impressions." Most of the Armenian rank-and-file, taught to hate Turks by their parents, churches and teachers (given genocide indoctrination from an early age, in order to develop soldiers for Hai Tahd, the Armenian Cause), are simply too brainwashed and are immersed in genocide-mania to a religious extent. (Armenian propaganda, in yet another example of Armenians doing the crime and blaming Turks for the same, tells us it is the Turks who are brainwashed; but even Fatma Muge Gocek revealed that Turkish schools avoided the genocide topic, and many Turks have gotten their first exposure to this madness once they had moved away from Turkey, and were blasted by the Armenians’ version of events in nations such as the USA and France.) In short: Most Armenian believers who perpetuate their genocide tale engage in “unconscious deception,” since they believe in their genocide as a God-substitute. By contrast, we must believe nearly all Armenian professors who specialize in the field know the real truth and work at “conscious deception,” that is, “lying.”
This, the professors and other educated Armenians feel, is the patriotic thing to do; many of these “scholars” are Dashnak-oriented, and this terrorist group has always followed an end-justifies-the-means strategy. The fanatical Dashnaks today enjoy a stranglehold over the worldwide Armenian diaspora, and the Republic of Armenia.
The genocide scholars are an altogether different can of worms. Hardly any specialize in history, and the few who do have forgotten the rules of honest history. Wealthy Armenians have cleverly made certain to support the hypocritical genocide institutions, and many genocide scholars (those mostly into the Holocaust) don’t know a thing about the Armenian episode other than the Armenian genocide propaganda they have read. Genocide is their religion, as long as the genocides have been politically selected, and whether these folks are consciously or unconsciously deceiving (surely there are examples of both varieties), one thing is for sure: the term “genocide scholar” is a misnomer, since those who begin their theses with the conclusion first, and who study only one side of a story, have nothing to do with scholarship, and everything to do with propaganda.
What inspired this page was a commentary by Peter Beinart that appeared in the October 1, 2007 issue of TIME Magazine, entitled, “The Devil in Every Fan: We cheer when our teams cheat. That’s because all we care about is winning. And if that makes us immoral, so what?”
Isn’t that exactly the mode for the genocide-mad Armenians and most of their genocide scholar allies? All that matters is getting their genocide agenda across. It doesn’t matter what kind of corrupt information they use, it doesn’t matter whose reputations they help destroy with their vicious character assassination strategies, all that matters is “winning.” And what makes these people especially despicable is that they pretend to be moral, given that they try to come across as fighting for human rights and genocide prevention (when the truth is, by selecting the worthier humans, and by comparing their designated villains with Nazis, they perpetuate hatred and racism, as well as the fact that there can be no genocide prevention any more than there could be murder prevention). What they are really about is, if their tactics “make them immoral, so what?”
The TIME article informs us that the fans of an American football team, the New England Patriots, learned that Coach Bill Belichick cheated (by getting an assistant to videotape the defensive coaches of a rival team, trying to steal their signs); he was fined, criticized by sports writers and editorialists, yet cheered by the fans. The “fans already knew that Belichick doesn’t play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.” (As alleged by a player, the coach is such a creep, the player was forced to train despite having suffered a concussion, and today has brain damage. Yet such a revelation has not hurt the coach’s reputation; the writer tells us there is “only one thing that could: losing.”)
We can say no less about the Armenian genocide extremists and most of their genocide scholar allies; the Marquis of Queensbury rules are a foreign concept, and whatever they can get away with, they will get away with... as long as their selected genocides, or what they tell us constitute genocides, reign supreme.
This is their “dirty little secret,” as Author Beinart wrote about sports fans: “We’re basically amoral.” An amoral person, of course, cannot discern right from wrong, which is sometimes even scarier than the way an immoral person conducts himself. An immoral person knows what he is doing is wrong, but does it anyway. The immoral person makes a choice, but the amoral person is too lost to even consider choosing. It could perhaps be said that the Armenian professors (conscious deceivers) who know the truth but choose to prevaricate are immoral, and the irrational Armenian rank and file (unconscious deceivers) can’t bring themselves to conduct the proper research (since the fulfillment of their genocide religion takes precedence over all else) may have the tendency to dance along amoral lines.
Beinart continues: “Kant said that acting ethically means treating other people as ends in and of themselves, not merely as means to our own desires. But that’s exactly how fans treat coaches and players. We want them to win because when they do, we bask in the glory.
Fans don’t really care how their teams win. They aren’t moral universalists; they don’t care about being fair to the other guys.”
The rank and file similarly “bask in the glory” as long as their genocide fetish is affirmed. They don’t care how their defenders do the job, as long as their team wins. And they certainly don’t care about being fair to the other guys. There is no end to examples from Armenian professors, from the way Richard Hovannisian ultimately drove Stanford Shaw out of UCLA, to the ways in which Vahakn Dadrian has tried to crucify those such as Guenter Lewy and Edward Erickson (charging them with poor scholarship, or with the stupidity to be manipulated by evil Turks), to how Peter Balakian compared Justin McCarthy to a “white supremacist.” But it’s not just the obsessed Armenians; the genocide scholars can be equally unethical.
Take the “Professional Ethics” paper co-authored by Robert Jay Lifton, Eric Markusen and Roger Smith. Lifton committed a huge faux pas by strictly relying on the word of master manipulator Vahakn Dadrian, in order to conclude Ottoman physicians behaved as the Nazi doctor, Mengele. The Turkish ambassador at the time enlisted the help of academician Dr. Heath Lowry to conduct a scholarly criticism, and was foolish enough to include Lowry’s report to Lifton, as a way to demonstrate to Lifton that the criticism derived from a worthy peer. (One of many examples of Turkish gullibility and/or knuckleheadedness; the Turk had no idea that he was feeding Lowry to the wolves.) Naturally, these three jumped on the opportunity, lashed out at Lowry as an “agent of the Turkish government” (lying outright in the process, by claiming that Lowry’s report was included “inadvertently”), encouraging Peter Balakian and others to enlist the aid of naive/prejudiced famous authors to help fry Lowry even more, and succeeding in knocking Lowry out of the genocide debate. To this date, this “Professional Ethics” paper, prepared by these unethical genocide scholars, is used as a tool for Armenian propaganda.
And then there is good old Israel Charny. He didn’t like that sixty-nine mostly Western scholars signed their names to a 1985 advertisement questioning the validity of the Armenians’ genocide, and Charny, with the help of the notorious ANCA, did a background check on these academicians. Some had received grants from two organizations with “Turkish” in the title (ARIT and the ITS), which clearly, to poor Israel Charny’s mind, must have been controlled by the sinister Turkish government. Charny unethically implied that most of these academicians must be “agents of the Turkish government” (although Fatma Muge Gocek, clearly in the Armenians’ corner, had received grants from the very same organizations as well; any scholar knows that accepting a grant is hardly tantamount to selling one’s academic soul), thus demonstrating to genuine historians how dirtily the Armenians and their genocide scholar allies play, and the last thing on their minds is “being fair to the other guys.” As a result, the real historians were frightened away from the debate, and the “genocide” field has since been dominated by fraudulent Armenians and their nearly-as-fraudulent genocide scholar allies.
Beinart wrote further: “In the abstract, fans oppose cheating. They may even oppose cheating by their own team, since the team could get caught, thus eliciting penalties that outweigh any potential gain. They may also fear the psychological penalties: if your team wins but people think it cheated, it’s harder to do a victory dance around the office watercooler. But fearing the consequences of cheating is a far cry from opposing it because it’s wrong.”
When Armenian terrorism raged globally in the 1970s and 80s (killing over seventy, and wounding over five hundred; the second greatest terror conducted in the USA between 1980-86 came courtesy of the Armenians), Armenians supported these “heroes,” even though “in the abstract” they claimed not to condone terrorism. Hardly any Armenian came out publicly to decry these vicious acts, because many Armenians felt points were being scored for their team. (Some even excused them. On the other hand, there was one highly sad and dramatic example of an Armenian-Turk who protested Armenian terror.)
George Mason, the moderate publisher of The California Courier (before the hardcore Harut Sassounian took over), commented: "There are many Armenian Americans in California who feel great sympathy and support for Armenian terrorists. I have talked to numerous peaceful, fair, and thoughtful men who have expressed support for the terrorists."
The aim of these terrorists, after all, was to bring recognition to the Armenian genocide myth, an aim that proved to be successful; most Western news accounts of these violent incidents would quickly add their take on Armenian propaganda in their biased reportage. Once the genocide team won and is currently enjoying their prominent status today, Armenians have learned to “cool it,” and these days restrict their attacks to character assassination and intimidation. The team is aware that if any fanatic should flip his lid and do something physically destructive, “Hai Tahd” could be set back a few years, and cost their cause “psychological penalties.”
Beinart continued: “When the refs go to review a close play, fans don’t sit there thinking, I hope they’ll make the right call. They pray that the call goes their way.”
This brings to mind debating with irrational Armenian extremists. Tell Armenian genocidists a rock-solid fact, and the last thing on their minds would be to consider the validity of what is being said. That is because the truth, or the “right call,” is not what they are after. Their first instinct will be to see how they could discredit what is being said, in a delirious attempt to see “that the call goes their way.” If the fact is too powerful, the strategy will be to ignore the fact completely, and to counter the momentary setback by throwing forth endless distracting weasel facts that the Armenian propaganda machinery has compiled through the years. Since their opponent will usually operate from a standpoint of honesty and fairness, generally, this trick will work. The opponent will then shift his or her attention to deal with the new points, and the original point will thus lose its potency.
Of course, another trick is to counter the rock-solid fact with the claim that it’s untrue. Particularly if the debate is on an important public forum, the Armenian genocidist will know the bigoted public has already been conditioned to be on the side of the noble “victims,” rather than the nasty “deniers,” and will accept whatever the genocidist claims, at face value. Both Peter Balakian and Taner Akcam used this particular trick to advantage, in their PBS debate; at times, they simply lied through their teeth.
"...[E]very Armenian with whom it has been my lot to come In contact seems to have a very vague idea of the value of truth. In the second place, in his anxiety to make out a case against the Turk, he is willing to publish as fact, any grotesque rumor...
The average Armenian cannot be believed on oath."
An Associated Press correspondent, as quoted in a "pro-Turk" letter contributed to The New York Times, August 23, 1895
And this leads to the crux of what this page set about to explore: why do so many Armenians lie?
The British author, Marmaduke Pickthall, made an enormously revealing point, when he clashed with Arnold Toynbee in the pages of The New Age (December 16, 1915, Vol. XVIII. No. 7), after Toynbee defended the sources of his Blue Book (“Mr. Arnold J. Toynbee invited me to read his book entitled ‘Armenian Atrocities: The Murder of a Nation,’ seeming confident that, if I did so, I should change my views... I have read Mr. Toynbee’s book, and can find there nothing serious in support of his contention that the Turkish Government ordered ‘the extermination of the Armenian race.’”) Pickthall demolishes Toynbee’s horrible work of propaganda, and then there was this:
“Mr. Toynbee quotes the ‘Frankfurter Zeitung’ to the effect that the Armenians are more intelligent than the Turks. Well, so they are, and in precisely the same way they are more intelligent than the English. It was an Armenian- Nubar Pasha who called us ‘the Turks of the West.’ There are certain efforts of the intelligence which do not occur to us as possible for man to make. The Armenian recognises no such limitations, and this it is which has made him so disliked throughout the East.
The typical Armenian esteems it meritorious not only to exaggerate but to invent occurrences calculated to excite the pity of the Western world.”
That reminds me of Rafael Ishkhanian’s words:
"[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. Among the leaders of the past we consider those who curse Turks and killed Turks to be the most patriotic. Our most recent heroes are those who assassinated Turkish diplomats in European cities... [this] is the dominant mentality."
It’s pretty terrible to point out so many Armenians engage in lying, and let’s please keep in mind there are many honorable Armenians (at least as long as the topic is not about genocide, regarding those willing to share their views publicly), but unfortunately, this is the reality. It’s not simply that these Armenian extremists lie, but that they consider it their patriotic duty to lie. There is a pattern here: the Ottoman-Armenians who served as interpreters for already prejudiced Westerners passed on their outrageous horror stories, and the Westerners accepted these stories at face value. No different than the massive voice of genocide-obsessed Armenians today, tenaciously writing letters or contributing to forums at anything and everything that might pose a threat to Hai Tahd.
Pickthall sheds light from his travels in an earlier issue of The New Age (September 25, 1913, Vol. XIII. No. 22); he saw many foreign war correspondents while spending over two weeks at the Pera Palace Hotel, and he took note of the many people who attempted to influence the reporters, including one Armenian who repeatedly claimed that he possessed private information, presumably of fictional Turkish misdeeds. This illustrated a customary way in which the uncritical Western journalists collected their details, often referring to their usually unnamed sources as reliable. Pickthall also recounts his time with his Turkish language teacher, a Christian from Diyarbakir. “Though we talked together long and freely, I could not discover that he had ever so much as heard of Turkish fanaticism — Christian though he was, and mixing, as he did, continually with Mahommedans.”
The Armenian penchant for dishonesty has been recorded widely by Westerners who got to know them. One, whom Peter Balakian ironically pointed to (in “The Burning Tigris”) as a voice affirming the “genocide,” was the American poet Ezra Pound, who wrote in The New Age (October 21, 1915, Vol. XVII. No. 25): “I mistrust all accounts of Armenians.”
We're going to take a look at this characteristic, peculiar to too many Armenians who have lent their voices publicly on their genocide, as much as we'd rather adopt the high road followed in Kamuran Gurun's excellent book, "The Armenian File." Gurun had written in his introduction:
"Because it was not our intent to slander the Armenian nation, nor to blame all Armenians for the actions of a small group... we have also avoided observations and opinions against the Armenians as a people which were contained in many of our sources."
So what's the idea here, with this page? Number one, there is no limitation in Armenian propaganda referring to how subhuman the Turks are as a people; it is simply disgraceful that these bigoted accounts are being pointed to in this day and age, and accepted without criticism in what is supposed to be an enlightened and "race-sensitive" age. But here, when the missionaries or when those such as Henry Morgenthau tried to present the Turks as the worst beings on earth, they had prejudices and/or agendas. In addition, the far greater number of writers who never had firsthand experience with the Turkish people directly, simply parroted the racist observations that were omnipresent. (There are plenty of accounts telling us that when Westerners got to know Turks firsthand, they were quickly won over by the goodness of the Turks.)
By contrast, Westerners who developed a low opinion of Armenians did so through firsthand experience. They often began with the most positive feelings toward the Armenians, as cultivated in their Christian home countries, but then through personal observations, began to make generalizations about certain Armenian characteristics.
Secondly, it's important to shed light on this penchant for dishonesty, because the prejudiced world today naively accepts whatever a Vahakn Dadrian or Peter Balakian throws their way. (At one time, that was not the case: "[T]he average American was beginning to grow sophisticated and sceptical concerning propaganda about the Near East," as William T. Ellis nicely put it in a 1928 article about "Smyrna"; that is one reason Armenians kept quiet roughly until 1965, on the 50th anniversary of their "genocide," time to get the hateful ball rolling again.)
A few of these observations have already been sprinkled throughout the site, as when the Armenians' great post WWI friend, Lord Curzon remarked, "the Turk is honest; the Christian is a liar and a cheat," as a result of his travels in "Armenia," in the early 1850s. Baron Max von Thielmann remarked on the tendency of Armenians to be "seldom if ever conscientious," from his own 1875 travel memoirs, but added importantly, "Still it must not be concluded from this that there are no honourable exceptions..."
"[N]o one, not even the missionaries, seems to have a good word to say about them," thought Lt. General Sir W. N. Congreve in 1919. A "gentleman" remarked, in Gratan Geary's 1878 travel memoirs, on how "a Mohammedan" may be trusted on his word, whereas a native Christian caused him to ask himself "where the deception lies — in what direction I am going to be tricked. There are exceptions, of course."
Historian-turned-genocide-scholar Dr. Margaret Lavinia Anderson compiled a few other examples of Westerners' views on the character of Armenians, in her article entitled, “Down in Turkey, far away” (Contemporary Issues in Historical Perspective, The Journal of Modern History, volume 79, 2007); she points to an article (later expanded into a booklet) in Die Zukunft, written by Hans Barth, whom the author describes as a "polemicist," and a "turcophile." (The rare Westerner giving a fair shake to Turks usually risks such a description, since everyone knows Turks are rotten, and who else would be of the right mind to write favorably of them?)
"Barth then grasped the nettle of the victims’ national character," Anderson writes. "Armenians... were impossible not to dislike. In contrast to (the Turkish Peasantry)..., these guys were usurers who 'plundered' their honest, hardworking Muslim neighbors. Pretty flimsy stuff." What is so flimsy about those in power positions ("[T]he Armenians are the bankers, merchants, mechanics, and traders of all sorts in Turkey... so that without them the Osmanlis could not survive a single day"; Hatchik Oscanyan, 1857) ripping off those less fortunate? This is called "Capitalism," which often goes hand in hand with "exploitation," and if the ones on top exhibit signs of not being particular about ethics, it's not unusual for such people to bend the rules in their favor. This sort of thing happens with U.S. corporations all the time.
The ninth century poetess Kassia (in the Frankfurter Zeitung's series, “Famous Women in Ancient Greece and Byzantium”; Prof. Anderson gently mocked the editors of the influential German publication for excusing the following as a "contribution to the current debate," but probably would not have protested when the same publication wrote lines to the extent that "the Armenians are more intelligent than the Turks," as Arnold Toynbee quoted, and Pickthall responded to, above) described the Armenians as “quite horrifying people,” and as Anderson summed up, "malicious in low positions, worse when prosperous, and worst of all when they rose to high estate." Left Liberal leader Friedrich Naumann's travel articles also maintained a low opinion: "Naumann quoted at length one who, to unanimous accord, justified the massacres as the 'self-defense' of honest, upright Turks, a people exploited by the grasping Armenian, who would steal from his own brother, sell his wife and prepubescent daughter, and morally befoul the whole city." Karl May, "the era’s most popular adventure writer," spoke of the Armenians (in The Empire of the Silver Lion, 1898) as those who (“speaking generally and on average”) could be behind “any kind of vile thing” taking place "whenever and wherever in the Orient."
Sir Mark Sykes, with one of the natives
Sir Mark Sykes is damned with a scandalous statement for these politically correct times (but only for select peoples): “Even Jews have their good points, but Armenians have none,” as quoted in G. S. Graber, Caravans to Oblivion: The Armenian Genocide, 1915 (1996). Hopefully the reader will allow a "Sykes digression" here, since Sykes got to know the Armenians and Turks very well, as he demonstrated in travel books such as Dar-ul-Islam; however, he did an "about face" in his views come WWI. (Likely for patriotic reasons; he was recruited to write anti-Turkish propaganda for Wellington House, where he indulged in fabrications and demonization — Sykes described Turks as "pure barbarians" and "degenerate," for example — and had a major hand in 1916's secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, outlining the Ottoman land-grabbing scheme between Britain and France.) Sir Sykes didn't care for being quoted in C. F. Dixon-Johnson's "The Armenians," as he illustrated in a letter to The Times. Marmaduke Picktall called Sykes on his change of heart, as Sykes made it seem that his words constituted "an attack on the Armenians, and that the quotations (by Sykes)... were wrested from their true meaning, or unwarrantably introduced in such a work?" After Pickthall quotes a revealing passage on the nature of the Armenians (from Sykes' The Caliphs’ Last Heritage, 1915; see under "Addendum, 9-07" here), of which Pickthall remarks: "The utterance is indeed so decided that the author’s firm conviction of its truth alone could justify its publication. I believe it, from my own slight knowledge of Armenians, to be true; and I, in common with many other Englishmen who have hitherto regarded Sir Mark Sykes as a friend and possible champion of the much misjudged Mohammedan majority in Turkey, am anxious to know what has caused this sudden change in his opinions... if the pro- Armenian friends of Sir Mark Sykes object to temperate and reasoned opposition, they must be in a truly pitiable state of mind. I ask every reader of ‘The Armenians,’ by C. F. Dixon-Johnson, to compare it with the pamphlet ‘Armenian Massacres: The Murder of a Nation,’ by Mr. Arnold J. Toynbee, and then, and not till then, to think about it.”
Otto von Bismarck’s epithets for an Austrian he did not care for included "Tartar, mouse-trap dealer, Armenian," as quoted in a 1950 book by Erich Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire. (I have a feeling Prof. Anderson could find the first word acceptable as a curse term; "Tartar," of course, is often a description for Azeris or other Turkic peoples from Asia.) Barth is faulted for bringing up the proverb which states an Armenian is better able to cheat Greeks and Jews, elements found "in the works of orientalists such as Alfred Korte, the archaeologist; Karl Krummbacher, founder of Byzantine studies in Germany; and Hugo Grothe, a geographer who assured readers that not Muslim fanaticism (the explanation of choice among armenophiles) but Armenian exploitation was responsible for the violence." Grothe's line of thinking, we are told, may better be understood by the fact that Grothe later became a Nazi. Does that mean those who pointed out unappealing characteristics of Armenians were all Nazis at heart?
For example, are we to believe this next speaker was in line to sport a Swastika?
"One of the disappointments in the present terrible situation and one of the saddest commentaries on American missionary work among the Armenians is their lack of religious and moral principles and the general baseness of the race. During all that has happened during the past year I have not heard of a single act of heroism or of self-sacrifice and the noble acts, if any, have been very few. On the contrary mothers have given their daughters to the lowest and vilest Turks to save their own lives; to change their religion is a matter of little importance to most of the people; lying and trickery and inordinate love of money are besetting sins of almost all, even while they stand in the very shadow of death. On one occasion, when the students of the Armenian theological seminary were arrested, nearly every one of them lied about one thing or another to save himself. Absolute truthfulness is almost unknown among the members of this race. Money is sought at any price, even at the risk of their lives, as in the case of the young man already mentioned in this despatch whom I had saved from death and tried to help for several months by keeping him in the Consulate. Every trick and device are resorted to by those who are not in need as well as by those who are to obtain money and often by depriving others of it who are in much greater need. From every point of view the race is one that cannot be admired although it is one to be pitied."
The author was U.S. Consul Leslie Davis, from one of the "Bibles" of the Armenians' genocide, The Slaughterhouse Province.
Now here is where Professor Anderson really goes overboard: "Extenuating the massacres in 1896 are Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, who note that in the course of the violence the sultan ordered 'the government to crack down on the Armenian merchants of Istanbul to lessen their substantial economic power.'" (History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2, 1997). The professor comments: "Imagine if a historian wrote that Hitler’s government had decided to 'crack down' on Berlin’s Jews."
The legitimate history of these mid-1890s events is that the Armenians, excited by their fanatical leaders, committed revolts and massacres, in order to induce European imperialists to step in and give the Armenians free hand-outs. No matter how often propagandists tell us otherwise, this irrefutable fact is confirmed in too many Armenian friendly sources to be questioned. (Missionary Cyrus Hamlin, for one.) Logically, too, after six hundred years of fairly harmonious co-existence, the reasons provided by propagandists, such as Muslims hating Christians, cannot explain why the Ottomans suddenly decided to massacre Armenians. So if imperialist-inducement serves as the backdrop, and if Sultan Abdul Hamid decided to curtail the power of the Armenians who had an economic grip over his nation, because he figured — for very good reason — the traditional "Loyal Nation" of the Armenians were suddenly untrustworthy and dangerous (who, after all, was financing the Hunchaks and the Dashnaks? It was the wealthy Armenians, whether by choice or coercion), then any government would have done what the Professors Shaw have reported that the Sultan has done. This episode cannot be compared with the German Jews of WWII, because the Jews were entirely innocent, and were not out to topple Germany; and besides, if this historical claim happened, then it is the duty of professional historians to report it as a fact. Note that Prof. Anderson does not examine the factual nature of the claim itself, as she needed to do, if she didn't like what was being said. No, Prof. Anderson is actually insinuating that the Professors Shaw were closet neo-Nazis! In other words, she is focusing on maligning the character of the historians, rather than sticking to the facts or non-facts of the historians' work.
This kind of practice is truly despicable, but it is only in a day's work for the typical genocide scholar. Prof. Anderson's paper is filled with falsehoods and speculations, but I am not going to address the many other eyebrow-raising points she makes in her quest to uphold the golden equation, "Armenians=good; Turks=bad." (That is not the point of this page, for one thing, and her work has already been examined in a page of her own.) Nevertheless, there are two of her points I would like to address: she tells us the number for the 1894-96 Armenian dead amounts to "some 200,000 or more Armenians," and we get the idea from her footnote that the figure is a fair median. The two extremes? Lepsius, whom she has stated elsewhere is a "hero" of hers, figured 88,000, later updated to 100,000 (not including those who died later, the professor points out, for reasons such as "loss of breadwinner"), and on the higher end: "By 1903, French and Italian commentators were putting the number of victims at 300,000 (Pour l’Arménie et la Macédoine, Paris, 1904)."
Isn't that remarkable?
In the same New Age letter where Pickthall took apart Toynbee's "Blue Book" work (the one Prof. Anderson assigns to her students as legitimate history; Pickthall's New Age letter appeared in the Dec. 16, 1915 issue), he reported that in the same vein as the 1876 Bulgarian victims first given as 60,000 and later proven by British Ambassador Layard to be 3,500 ("including the Turks, who were, in the first instance, slain by the Christians"), similarly, the 1894 Sassun massacres" (Placed in quotation marks by Pickthall) were first slated at 8,000, "and afterwards reduced in the final report of the Commission of Enquiry to 900." There are many other examples of such "appalling fabrications," as Pickthall worded it, that are on record.
The rare conscientious missionary, George Lamsa, wrote in his 1923 book "The Secret of the Near East," that 40,000 Armenians were reported killed, 10,000 women taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute, "In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses." The Armenian-sympathetic Briton, Richard Davey, gave us an excellent idea as to how the game worked: "If anyone wishes to form an idea of how Armenian atrocities are manufactured and exaggerated, let him read the Blue-books on 'affairs at Aleppo,' 1879. The London papers, inspired by the 'patriots,' announced, with a great flourish of trumpets, that 500 Armenians had been tortured and massacred in the neighbourhood of that city; and there was, so to speak, a great Armenian horrors' boom all over the western world and America too. Well, after all this sensationalism, the number of slain was eventually reduced by our own and the American consuls to eight."
Of course, the bigoted French and Italian writers were going to give credence to this malarkey, just as today's genocide scholars accept such propaganda without question. The 300,000 figure is so totally without foundation, how obscene to even mention it. It is Lepsius's figure of 100,000 that is actually on the high end (this is the figure that Wellington House propagandist, and another devout Christian, Lord Bryce, also provided as the mid-1890s toll), because men such as Lepsius and Bryce shared the agenda to make the Turks appear as horrible as possible. The estimate of Barth (29,000, maximum) is much closer to the truth, more than double the figure of the Ottomans' 13,432. (As usual, the Turks killed by the Armenians during the same period — some 5,000 — remain invisible.) And how does Prof. Anderson handle this estimate? (And this is the second point of hers I would like to highlight for criticism.) She writes that Barth was "almost certainly on the take"! That's right! The German author was an "agent of the Turkish government," in other words, a government that was "almost ludicrously innocent of the propagandist’s art," as master Wellington House propagandist Arnold Toynbee himself worded it (in Western Question in Greece and Turkey," 1922.)
The fact of the matter is, despite Prof. Anderson's cruel term, "Turkey's 'lie factory,'" the Turks — then and now — usually have no idea of what they are doing, as far as protecting themselves. Pickthall pinned their psychology perfectly, in another New Age letter (July 10, 1919, Vol. XXV. No. 11): "[T]he Turk never sticks up for himself in the controversy against Europe. He does not know how to do so... he puts himself in the wrong from a tendency to accept the point of view of his opponents... There is also the feeling that it is a waste of time to seek to demolish prejudices so robust as those which Europe cherishes regarding Turkey, even though those prejudices may be based upon false information. The Turk is thus the worst possible champion of his own cause. Anyone in possession of the facts could state his case much better than he can state it." This brings to mind two points: it is this combination of fatalism, helplessness and apathy, in addition to pride, that has caused the Turks to mostly keep quiet against genocide allegations for years, allowing the genocide juggernaut to grow as powerful as it has become today, seducing professors with bonafide history degrees to get in on the beneficial game. Secondly, because the easy charge of being an "agent of the Turkish government" is perfectly in line with the Armenians' tendency to "pay off" those who can help with their political cause — as in the case of Taner Akcam — once again, the Armenians do the crime, and blame the Turks of the same crime. Genocide scholars and others, prejudiced to begin with, easily accept and repeat these baseless charges.
How did Prof. Anderson demonstrate her outrageous accusation against Barth? Here was her "proof": "Who else would have covered the costs of publishing Turk, Defend Yourself! a pamphlet on steroids, with gilt-edged pages? Of having it translated into French?" (Would it have cost such an unreasonable fortune to have published a "pamphlet" in 1898 Germany?) What Prof. Anderson is really getting at is, the Turks are simply so awful, anyone who is interested in telling the historical truth (which, unfortunately for such writers, involves portraying Turks as actual human beings) must be getting paid off. And this comes from a woman fancying herself as one for human rights, a woman who apologizes for the Armenians at every turn, portraying those who have pointed out the Armenians' less desirable qualities as ones who raise their right arms, click their boots, and cry, "Ja wohl, mein Fuehrer."
Turnabout is fair play, in this page examining the dishonesty of Armenians, and Prof. Anderson makes a fair point; she reveals that the 1988 Turkish version of Barth's "Turk, Defend Yourself!" pamphlet was mistranslated as "O Turk, Awake." Just as the travel books from the 19th century, written by Westerners without axes to grind against the Turks, confirmed the honesty of the Turks and Kurds versus the dishonesty of Ottoman Christians (for example, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, in the words of Marx, felt "the mass of the Turkish people" was "unconditionally one of the bravest and most moral representatives of the European peasantry" [Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, 1973], and even the rare missionary, Elder Tanner, thought of the Turks as the "most honest and moral of the Orientals," in 1886), I have learned not to always accept the claims of Turks when it comes to genocide matters. (Whereas, when I seriously first got into this surreal genocide world, I would accept Turkish word at face value, because with truth on their side, I figured, why would Turks have a reason to falsify?)
But Turks suffer, generally, from two problems. The main problem is a lack of attention to detail, and such sloppiness sometimes goes hand in hand with a "this is good enough" attitude. What is the excuse for mistranslating the title of another author's book? There is none, and that certainly does not induce confidence in how carefully the rest of the book may have been translated. Secondly — and luckily, this happens rarely, but it does happen — some Turks do lie outright on genocide claims. For example, some fool made up quotes, attributing these quotes to actual personalities, attesting to how Armenians had killed 2.5 million Turks. Whatever parties concocted such falsehoods must not have given any consideration to the overall damage caused; the Turks are already seen, in the prejudiced Western world, as the liars of this genocide matter, and how absolutely stupid to create further dents in Turkish integrity. (Similar to prejudiced Westerners who accept Armenian propaganda at face value, the Turks who have read these lines and then have gone on to repeat them also suffer from a blind, unquestioning acceptance.)
Where does this dishonesty come from, when the Turks have no reason to lie? I believe it's frustration. The extremist Armenians may be observed in trying every dirty trick in the book, in the defense of Hai Tahd. From outright lying to ad hominem attacks, to financially supporting Turkish opportunists, to pretending to be Turkish in the forums they contribute to or in the web sites they establish... you name it, they've done it. Some Turks then become weak, and start thinking in terms of "two can play at that game." That is the worst thing they can do, of course.
This is the downside of committing wrongs. The Turks and Armenians were the best of friends for centuries, until some greedy Armenians went nuts and started committing ghastly crimes against the Turks, hoping for a response in turn. Sometimes, of course, they got what they wished for. On a smaller scale, that is exactly what has happened with the concept of spreading falsehoods. The dishonesty of these extremist Armenians know no bounds, and there are times such infectious poison will spread.
Let us revisit the state of the Armenian professors. Is there one, when it comes to the "genocide" subject, who is honest? Forget about the old guard like Dadrian and Hovannisian, they are beyond redemption. The comparative younger generation, illustrated by the likes of Peter Balakian, have followed in the same footsteps. There are some who have tried to keep a lid on the dishonesty, such as Ara Sarafian and Ronald Suny (the former's reward with one episode was practically to be accused as an "agent of the Turkish government," the same fate that awaited his one-time partner who gave honesty a shot, Vincent Lima), but how can you defend the indefensible? No matter how these people try to go about it, there simply was no "Final Solution" plan against the Armenians, and whatever these Armenian scholars are going to say, it's going to turn out to be a lie. The only relevant factor then becomes, how far will they be willing to stretch the truth? (The only respectable Armenian scholar I know from the world of genocide is Dr. Robert John; that's pathetic.)
This page has not been an easy one to prepare, because as stated off the bat, all generalizations are dangerous. And the last thing I want to do is give the impression that Armenians can be counted on for their dishonesty. That is certainly not the case; there are extremely honorable Armenians out there, and I have had the privilege to know a few. The problem is, these are the ones who are keeping quiet. Either they don't want to get mixed up with the mad dogs among them (that's the age-old "Curtain of Fear" at play), or their own patriotic feelings are such that they feel the liars are performing a valuable service for Hai Tahd... which would not make them very honorable. (Recall the former Courier publisher's words above, referring to the "peaceful, fair, and thoughtful men who have expressed support for the terrorists"; these Armenians sound like they would have come from the "honorable" category, but their misguided patriotism superseded their honor.)
But our world is increasingly becoming ethically-challenged, and this kind of behavior is not restricted to Armenians. As the TIME essay went on to offer:
A study demonstrated that “a significant minority of fans — if guaranteed anonymity — would even support injuring an opposing player or coach.” In 1940, a football team "forfeited a victory after realizing that it had been mistakenly given an extra play. If a coach did that today, sports writers would declare him a saint. And his team’s fans would boil him in oil."
On the other hand, there is a definite pattern of Armenian mendacity through the ages, regardless of how much the apologists for Armenians attempt to cast the writers of such opinions as racist Nazis. If an Armenian champion as Leslie Davis writes, "Absolute truthfulness is almost unknown among the members of this race," then it is difficult not to pay notice. If Marmaduke Pickthall, who surely was not raised with any prejudices toward Armenians in his Armenian-sappy nation of Great Britain, writes, based on his own observations and interactions that "The typical Armenian esteems it meritorious not only to exaggerate but to invent occurrences calculated to excite the pity of the Western world,” we have got to pay attention. Because when it comes to their genocide obsession, this is the way Armenians behave, as a rule; at least the ones who make their voices heard publicly. We have to pay attention, because it is these ethically-challenged Armenians who are snookering the already prejudiced world with their genocide lies, breeding the grounds for further prejudice and hatred. The stakes are high; when "neutral" observers look into these matters, they must be forewarned not to accept Armenian claims without deep study. They must entertain a healthy "mistrust [of] ... accounts of Armenians,” as another Armenian champion, Ezra Pound, felt he must do.
Furthermore, this pattern of Armenian dishonesty is a stain upon the Armenians' national honor. The honorable Armenians must force themselves to adhere to the truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how much it hurts. This will mean turning one's back on the claims of Armenian professors and their genocide scholar allies. That will be an extremely difficult thing for most Armenians to attempt, but the honorable Armenian must do it. The honorable Armenian must put the truth above his or her feelings of patriotism, and/or pathological victimhood. If the honorable Armenian can get rid of the blind, religious genocide faith and drum up the necessary rationality, and see where the truth really stands (it's not that difficult; for example, here is a French historian's 1920 account, and the account is perfectly in line with the version derogatorily called "Turkish propaganda." There is no way this French historian was a "turcophile", nor was he "on the take," especially from a nearly nonexistent 1920 Ottoman government under British and French control. After the read, and after having paid note to the fact that the French historian also made use of propagandistic Armenian sources, there is a question that begs to be asked: why doesn't a "historian" like Prof. Anderson go near the sources examinng the role of the Dashnaks and Hunchaks in depth, as a real historian would be duty-bound to do?). Then the honorable Armenian must do the most difficult thing: SPEAK UP.
(Currently, and since the death of Edward Tashji, there is only one — or, I should say, there are one-and-a-half, as the second one can be ambiguous, perhaps on purpose so as not to lose his audience — Armenians I am aware of who publicly question the "genocide." That is ridiculous.)
It is the duty of the right-minded Armenian to stringently stress the genuine truth. If my national heritage has become known for a negative trait, and there is sound reason for it (as opposed to the negative traits that Turks have become known for, as a result of vicious propaganda; Sir Mark Sykes' charges of Turks being "pure barbarians" and "degenerate" may top the long list), then I would want to do whatever I could do to dispel this negative image that has the potential of hurting my kind.
The TIME article goes on to tell us that "Sports are often compared to war. The team is our army, battling for our honor. But there’s a key twist: the players aren’t citizen-soldiers; they’re mercenaries. They can be bought, bartered and sold, and once they are, they go from heroes to enemies."
And this genocide battle is a war, a war that the Armenians and their supporters are handily winning, because of their dishonesty, wealth, and sheer brute force, along with existing anti-Turkish prejudices in the Western world, as well as Turkish apathy. Naturally, if the honorable Armenians begin to speak the truth, they will go from heroes to enemies within the Armenian and genocide scholar camp. That will take plenty of courage, and it is easy to understand why almost no Armenians have put themselves on the line, as who needs to face the destructive actions of these unscrupulous extremists? Yet, Armenian national honor needs to be protected. The honorable Armenian must consider what line of action would constitute greater patriotism, while also considering the price of ostracism and character defamation, practiced by the screwballs on the genocide team.
The honorable Armenians who don't speak up will risk being guilty of exactly what the TIME author has said about the sports fans:
"we aren’t innocent victims; we’re co-conspirators." (An Armenian who is not an "innocent victim"? Unfathomable.)
The conclusion of the TIME article is right on the money, as far as the rest of the pack, the dishonorable Armenians. Simply substitute "The genocide-obsessed Armenian activist" for "Belicheck."
"Belicheck... knows that as long as he wins, all will be forgiven. And that once he stops, it won’t matter if he becomes Mother Teresa. He doesn’t care about being fair to the other team; he doesn’t even really care about his own players. He just wants to win."
- Turkish - Armenian Relations
- American Academicians' Declaration (May 19, 1985)
- Turkish diplomats killed by armenian terrorists
- Questions and Answers
- Western perception towards the issue
- How the armenian issue came about?
- Armenian Terror
- What is the Armenian Problem?
- Armenian-Azerbaijan Conflict
- So Called Armenian Genocide
- Karabakh Conflict
- Khojaly Massacre
- Book Reviews