gives an idea of what happens to Americans committing high treason in
the United States:
"But I am told," said Von
Jagow, "that there will be an insurrection of German-Americans if
your country makes war on us."
"Dismiss any such idea from
your mind," I replied. The first one who attempts it will be punished
so promptly and so drastically that such a movement will not go far.
And I think that the loyal German-Americans themselves will be the first
to administer such punishment."
Story," 1918, page 40.
An article in the Jan. 24, 2007 issue of The New York Times was thought-provoking,
when applied to the "Armenian Question." Entitled "8 Arrested in 1971
Killing of San Francisco Police Officer." The reporter, Jesse McKinley, opened
the piece up with: "Eight men, including seven described as members of the radical
Black Liberation Army, were arrested on Tuesday on charges of murdering a police officer
here in 1971 and waging a violent five-year battle against the police and federal
The Black Liberation Army (BLA) was described as "a violent offshoot of the black
nationalist Black Panthers, which operated from the late 1960s until the early
1980s." (Coincidentally paralleling somewhat closely, the terror spree of Armenian groups such as
ASALA and the JCAG, from 1973 until the early 1990s.)
We're not going to get into the motivation or history of the black movement, other than to
remind readers that African-Americans were still not allowed to be part of American
society by the 1960s, which led to rightful protest. The civil rights movement was led by
activists as Martin Luther King, Jr., which followed Gandhi-like strategies of
non-violence. Naturally, fringe groups stressing violence — such as the BLA — also
So let's apply this parallel by going back to the Ottoman Empire of the late 1800s. The
first couple of Armenian committees, getting a whiff of the great trouble their nation was
in... with European imperialists circling to cash in on its riches, and arch-foes like
Russia instigating Ottoman Christians... started to harbor thoughts of abandoning ship,
and to get a piece of the pie. The first group did not openly advocate violence;
established in 1860, the "Benevolent Union"'s aim was to restore Cilicia, and
some members were connected with the 1862 Zeitun troubles. As the years passed, Armenians
started turning to terror, as with the establishment in Van of the Black Cross, a "Ku
Klux Klan" like group. Come 1887 and 1890, the Hunchaks and Dashnaks were born, and
there was no turning back. Their aim was revolution, implemented by means of murder,
arson, extortion... pure terrorism.
While deceptive Armenian propaganda tells us the poor, innocent Armenians were always
picked on, the fact is Armenians and Turks co-existed with
relative harmony for centuries, and that Armenians were allowed to prosper to the extent
of being, to a degree, the masters
of Ottoman society. And as imperialists pretending to be protectors of Ottoman
Christians kept leaning on the Sick Man for their own evil ends, Armenians received
greater and greater freedoms, which only led to their committing greater and greater
mischief, since nothing was going to satisfy the fanatics among them but to carve eastern
Anatolia into a "Greater Armenia."
So to make it clear: Ottoman-Armenians were far from oppressed, as American blacks.
Let's cut to the chase:
Let me draw a parallel
imaginary case. Suppose that Mexico was a powerful and rival country with which we
were at war, and suppose that we sent an army to the Mexican border to hold back the
invading enemy; suppose further that not only the negroes in our army deserted to the
enemy but those left at home organized and cut off our line of communication. What do
you think we as a people, especially the Southerners, would do to the negroes? Our
Negroes have ten times the excuse for hating the whites that the Armenians have for
their attitude toward the Turks. They have no representation, although they have an
overwhelming majority in large sections of the South, and have nothing to say in the
making or administration of the laws under which they are governed. South of the Mason
and Dixon line they are practically a subject race, while the Armenians in Turkey have
not only full representation but special privileges not accorded by any other country.
The Turkish Government ordered
the Armenians deported from the districts they menaced That they did not have railways
and other means of transportation was not their fault, and the deportation had to be
carried out on foot. That this was not done in the most humane manner possible is
undoubtedly a fact, and the Turkish Government has condemned the unnecessary cruelties
that occurred; but I feel confident that if America had been put in the hypothetical
situation above referred to, it would have stopped that insurrection if it had had to
kill every negro in the South, and would not have gone to the tedious and laborious
defensive act of deportation, in spite of our extensive means of transportation.
Arthur Tremaine Chester, Angora and the Turks, 1923
In our more "modern" example, we are not
talking about the "negroes" of 1923, but the freer, yet still not truly
free, American blacks of the 1960s. One didn't find many blacks in the government of
the 1960s, for example, while Ottoman-Armenians had attained important governmental posts for generations.
So let's build this parallel up. Let's imagine the USA was not as powerful during
the Cold War of the 1960s, and the Soviet Union had a freer hand to destabilize the
United States, as it did with the Turkey of the 1970s. (And as it did with the
Ottoman Empire from the 19th century onwards.)
The Russians had given the "Turkish Armenians" 242,900 rubles, as reported in a February 1915 Dashnak
conference, for the initial cost of arming their Armenian allies within the
Ottoman Empire. This translates to over 13 million of today's dollars to "start
riots" during WWI, and who knows how much more money Russia provided in the
months to come.
Now let us imagine the Black Liberation Army operated similar to the Armenian
Revolution Federation (ARF, or Dashnaks), and had a history of gaining control over
most American blacks; over the last few decades, the BLA had succeeded in silencing
opposition, by murdering fellow blacks seen as loyal to the American government, and
poisoning the minds of the bulk of African-Americans, by drilling them with
"the white man is the devil" propaganda. Things boiled up to the point
where polarized whites and blacks were forced to choose sides.
The Soviet Union declares war on the USA. Remember, the USA, we are imagining, was
not very strong; the nation's manpower and resources would be limited, and they'd be
getting attacked on all sides by the Soviets and their satellites; most Americans
would be convinced if the Soviets were to succeed, the Soviets would engage in an
ethnic cleansing policy (as the Russians had attained an expertise in the Muslim-polishing off
business, strategies the Armenians would go on to wholeheartedly embrace). In other words, this would
be a true life-or-death war; if the Americans should lose, that would not only be
the end of their country, but... as the dismal years progressed under conquest...
possibly the ultimate end of Americans.
Cleverly, the Soviet Union makes sure to provide the BLA with over 13 million
dollars to finance their rebellion. The Soviet Union promises the eastern coast to
the black Americans, as a new homeland... a promise the Soviet Union certainly does
not intend to keep, but the fanatical BLA leaders can't think straight, and delude
themselves into believing the Soviets are their friends. (Exactly paralleling the
situation with Tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Armenians.)
In the thick of this nightmare, blacks all over the United States, now totally
beholden to the views of the BLA or too afraid to challenge them, conduct operations
of treachery all over the United States. Sometimes they militarily rise to detract
the resources and energies of the American Army, paving the way to a Soviet land
invasion. When blacks succeed in gaining control of territories, they wipe out the
residents not like them (an easy feat, considering most able-bodied Ameicans are
defending the homeland on multiple fronts), having succumbed to the racist
propaganda of the BLA.
Now, what would the United States government and people do, in this situation?
Everyone knows the answer to that question. What we don't know is how far the U.S.
government and the American people would go. That is, would they find the
wherewithal to actually conduct a temporary resettlement process as the Ottomans
did, what Prof. Guenter Lewy correctly called a "relatively humane"
process... in order to contain the threat by the treacherous black American
community? Or would it be "shoot first, ask questions later"?
Remember too, the truth in Chester's words:
"Our Negroes have ten times the excuse for hating the whites that the Armenians
have for their attitude toward the Turks."
American blacks have suffered immensely. Their history is one of slavery. Surely some
would see such "payback" as a just course of action, giving white Americans a
taste of their own murderous, oppressive medicine.
Now let's drop the imaginary scenario, and concentrate on the America of the 1960s and
later, as it was.
These BLA terrorists were killing police officers.
No matter how "just" some would think their cause, what people on earth would
tolerate such acts of violence, and of disturbing societal peace?
What people would not expect their government to do their duty, and to put down
such violent terrorists, to practice the real "self-defense"?
Now everyone knows the answers to these questions.
So why are the people who support the Armenians completely blind to the realities that led
to their so-called "genocide"? Why do they accept that when Armenian Dashnaks
murdered Ottoman officials, that was justified, and whenever the Ottoman government tried
to defend themselves against such terrorism, the government was committing
(Of course, most non-Armenian supporters of the "Armenian genocide" only believe
in the propaganda they are spoon-fed, and don't know of these factual realities, which
does not say much about their intellectualism. But what of the "genocide
scholars" and other learned people who have a pretty good idea of the goings-on, and
still apply a double-standard to the Turks? There are several reasons why these prople
feel the way they do, and the core lies in racism.)
These pro-Armenians not only support the notion that Ottomans killed by Armenians was a
perfectly defensible concept, but when Armenian terrorists killed Turkish diplomats during
their terror spree of the 1970s-80s, most believed that the innocent Turks, born years
after the events, deserved what they got. These pro-Armenians must have believed in the
rationale of hateful Armenians of the period, such as this one, added to their existing feelings of racism.
The San Francisco police chief, Heather Fong, at a
news conference yesterday with photographs of Sgt. John V. Young and Ronald S.
Bridgeforth, who continues to be sought in the murder case from 1971. (Photo: Chiu,
We're not getting into the specifics of the black movement, but
the article we opened up sheds further light. An excerpt:
"It is a good day for police officers in New York and San Francisco and
everywhere else," Mr. (NY Police Commissioner Raymond) Kelly said in a
telephone interview from Washington. "It underscores the fact that the law
enforcement community is never going to forget."
Particularly in these terrorism-intolerant times, most Americans, including most
black Americans, are going to say, GOOD. These murderers got what they deserved.
After all, they killed police officers. Who the hell did they think they are,
killing police officers? We don't give a damn about their "cause," nobody
has the right to resort to such violence, threatening the security of us all.
And they would be right to express such outrage. It is the outrage all people would
feel in their own societies.
(In this case, to be precise, one cop was killed, and a civilian was wounded. And to
repeat, these men were additiionally charged with "waging
a violent five-year battle against the police and federal authorities," further described as a Dashnak-style " 'conspiracy to kill law
enforcement officers' from 1968 to 1973, a plan that included the murders of two New
York police officers, four attempted murders of law enforcement personnel, the
bombing of a police officers' funeral at a San Francisco church and the attempted
bombing of another San Francisco police station, as well as three bank
On the other hand, we know the police can sometimes abuse their power... in the
United States, and in all countries of the world. In their rush to convict,
particularly against criminals who hurt their fellow police, some police detectives
may not go about their business in an honorable fashion.
For example, we are given a taste of the "other side" in this article:
A lawyer who represents Mr. Bell, Stuart Hanlon, said he thought that the case
against Mr. Bell was based on a 30-year-old confession by a suspected Black Panther
member that a judge threw out in the mid-'70s because it had been physically
coerced. "I think the police are outraged, and rightfully so, that one of their
own was gunned down," Mr. Hanlon said. "They believe they are right. But
the belief does not make it so."
Now (not knowing any of the other details, but approaching the matter solely from
what this article is telling us), some of us would have alarm bells going off at
this point. You mean one of these men was probably arrested on the
"say-so" of someone else that had already been rejected in a courtroom of
law? Something could be fishy. Is it possible that revenge-minded police rushed to
judgment, and did not do their professional duty?
But you know what? Most Americans are not going to think that way. Most Americans
are going to say. "GOOD. These murderers got what they deserved. After all,
they killed police officers. Who the hell did they think they are, killing police
Now there were times when Ottoman-Armenians were no doubt arrested and sentenced
unfairly. Police officers are human; aside from the handful who are corrupt, they
can make mistakes.
Most people, however, apply a zero tolerance to Ottoman authorities having made
mistakes in the case of Armenians, or more importantly, against Armenians who really
were guilty. (Ironically, many Armenian terrorists were given sentences not
commensurate to their murderous crimes, as Hamparsum "Murad" Boyadjian, or allowed to go
free, like "Armen Garo" Pastermadjian [see last link]... only to come back
and commit their murderous crimes anew. Mainly because of the protection of the
imperialists.) Isn't that interesting.
The Ottoman authorities were exposed to increasingly wide scale Armenian
disturbances, treachery and violence over the span of some forty years, and any cop
in similar circumtances would find it a challenge to maintain their professional
objectivity. Yet here, the BLA, fighting for a "cause" they had real
historical reasons to flip out over, killed a few people, and it will be hard going
today to find folks to look at them sympathetically.