The ending comment of Professor Eugene V. Gallagher was: "...Passions and commitments that can be engendered by religion can be extraordinarily powerful, and sometimes no other human beings can stand in their way." Then the film's narrator took over:
"As long as reason can be eclipsed by faith, there will be those who use religion to exploit, and those who give up their free will to a charismatic cult leader. Police only step in after laws have been broken and in the world of the cult, this is often too late. The key to preventing tragedy is the individual confronting and defying the power of the cult."
Let's examine how the above applies to genocide-obsessed Armenians (and the Armenians who preceded them, before the "genocide"), and to a lesser extent, genocide adherents in general.
The TAT site has often made the parallel of genocide devotion to religious fervor. This was not an original idea; a pioneering genocide scholar, Terrence Des Pres, himself explained (back in 1976) the attitude of students in a genocide class as "religious."
The "religious" parallel has a more sinister undertone than what des Pres was driving at. As those of us who have taken the trouble to look beneath the surface of Armenian genocide claims have realized, there are no real facts to back up the charge. The "evidence" all boils down to hearsay, with some forgeries. But that's all right; to the genocide-adherent, facts do not matter. All that matters is faith.
As the program began, we were told that "cults share certain defining characteristics. In a cult, leaders recruit members through deceptive techniques that rob them of their identity and their individuality. Experts have termed these techniques 'thought reform.'"
Prof. of Psychiatry, Robert Jay Lifton
And the "expert" the program came up with was none other than the whistleblowing "genocide scholar," Robert Jay Lifton, himself. The professor explained that "thought reform" involves two stages, the first being a breakdown of one's own psychic integrity. The second stage "is reeducation, trying to remake the person into a new person." As an example, the program pointed to the first of three case studies, Charles Manson, who "broke down young recruits' resistance, rendering them vulnerable to Manson's bizarre reeducation."
Let's travel back in time to the days of the Ottoman Empire, where the "Loyal Millet," the Armenians, lived in relative peace and prosperity for centuries. As the "Sick Man" deteriorated, and extremists saw that benefits could be gained by turning traitorous, the Armenians' loyalty would be targeted by the "cult leaders" of that time, the Hunchak and Dashnak revolutionaries. Through their methods of terror, a segment of the Armenian population would be forced to join their cause, but this the segment of the Armenian population who maintained their free will. It's the ones who fell into the trap of swallowing Hunchak and Dashnak (as well as missionary) propaganda that started to think the Armenians were racially superior, which allowed ordinary Armenians to think of the Turks as subhuman creatures. (That is, the "reeducation" factor of "thought reform," that has carried over and is being perpetuated to this day, as may readily be seen in Armenian forums referring to the "Mongol Turks.") This is the attitude that led to so many participating in the cold-blooded ethnic cleansing campaign that would claim the lives of some half-million fellow Ottomans, murders often perpetrated in the cruelest manner, as documented, for one, by their own allies.
Dep. D.A. Patrick Sequeira
The "Manson girls," who had murdered Sharon Tate and others, are shown to be defiant in court. Los Angeles County Deputy D.A. Patrick Sequeira (the film showed him at a parole hearing of one of these women. He also attended the parole hearing of Hampig Sassounian), possibly aware of the Linda Blair-like "possession" that the Dashnak terrorist and the Manson killer shared) commented: "There's something that caused them to do such a horrible crime. And to do it in a manner where there appears to be no remorse afterwards. And so when you have someone like that, the question becomes, can they ever really be rehabilitated."
Charlie's "Angels"; Van Houten is at left
Model prisoner Leslie Van Houten, right, at
16th parole hearing. She was arrested at 19,
the exact age her deranged "counterpart"
and fellow cultist, Hampig Sassounian was,
at the time of his arrest.
At the end of Marty Callaghan's excellent documentary, "The Armenian Revolt: 1894-1920," the narrator alluded to whether the Armenians who had committed so many crimes would be haunted in their dreams years later. The problem is, so many Armenians did not look upon their victims as human beings. (Another Manson documentary on the History Channel, 2006's "True Crime Authors: HELTER SKELTER with Vincent Bugliosi," explained that the Manson clan was brainwashed into thinking of their victims not as decent human beings, but as symbols of a sick society; the prosecutor Bugliosi elaborated, "perhaps psychologically it is easier to stab a symbol than it is to stab a human being.") As the Manson girls at the time of their trial, one wonders whether too many Armenians were bothered by their consciences.
The latter-day murderous Armenian, Hampig Sassounian, only expressed a form of remorse after a quarter-century of proclaiming his innocence, and who knows whether he did so with sincerity, interested as he was in gaining his freedom. Given their hateful brainwashing by what we may refer to as the cult of genocide, it is unlikely the terrorists from the later period would "ever really be rehabilitated." In the case of Armenian terrorists, "rehabilitation" is usually the last thing on the judges' minds. The irresponsible genocide-sympathizing and bigoted judge basically slapped the wrists of the Dashnak terrorists of the L.A.-Five, quickly releasing them back into society, intact with their racism and hatred. (Many members of the L.A. Five went on to becoming "respectable members of the community"; instead of using bombs and bullets, some graduated into positions where they managed to influence impressionable Armenians with the cult of genocide and hatred.) When France prematurely released Varoujan Garabedian, the murderous ASALA terrorist "promised to do his best for the realization of our goals" as he "was greeted with rapturous applause by dozens of supporters in Yerevan." (Per The Armenian Reporter.)
Charles Manson, from a 1987 interview
To cap off then, Prof. Gallagher's statement, "...Passions and commitments that can be engendered by religion can be extraordinarily powerful, and sometimes no other human beings can stand in their way," applies to a tee, regarding the Armenian rebels and terrorists, both from the Ottoman period,and its relatively modern-day counterpart of the 1970s and 80s. We can see these religious genocide "passions" in existence in the Armenian rank and file today. So consumed are the extremists among them, some are easily persuaded to travel down the road of violence, targeting those who run contrary to their emotional beliefs. One good thing that can be said about the genocide industry's overwhelming success in getting the world to accept the "Armenian genocide" claim is that these rabid extremists not only do not see the need to turn violent these days, sitting as prettily as they are, but also realize how violence can be counter-porductive to their cause. (At the core of which is innocence and victimhood.) So they are content in confining their attacks to the age-old strategy of character assassination campaigns. Their opposition, the Turks, hardly share the same passions and commitments, given that most Turks are motivated by "reason" and "fairness." Since Turks are disliked in the West, and no one is going to defend the Turks — not even the Turks —- then, truly, "no other human beings can stand in [the] way" of the genocide cultists.
As far as the program's ending statement:
"As long as reason can be eclipsed by faith, there will be those who use religion to exploit, and those who give up their free will to a charismatic cult leader."
And such has certainly been the case during Ottoman times, when many of the simpler-minded Armenians were incited to join Hai Tahd, or the Armenian Cause. For example, in the early 1890s, when the Hunchak terrorist, Hamparsum "Murad" Boyadjian, arrived in Sassun, the New York Herald Tribune reported: "Hamparsum tricked the simple people into believing that he had been sent by the European Powers to overthrow Turkish domination, and thus succceeded in realizing his murderous plans." In effect, the local Armenians proved willing to "give up their free will to a charismatic cult leader."
"Police only step in after laws have been broken and in the world of the cult, this is often too late."
Indeed, when the Ottoman police stepped in to address the crimes of Armenian terrorists from the 1890s on, as when the police of the world's countries stepped in to check the Armenian terrorists of the 1970s and 80s, it was often too late; the world of the "Hai Tahd" cult, in the case of the former, and the genocide cult with the latter would just keep growing and growing.
"The key to preventing tragedy is the individual confronting and defying the power of the cult."
And here only the honorable Armenians can break the deadly hold the Dashnaks have on the world's diaspora and the Republic of Armenia. Since the genocide cult is an expression of patriotism, and since those who speak out are in danger of being ruthlessly struck down (in the diaspora, an example; in the case of Armenia, an example), the concept of "honorable Armenian" becomes a rare breed, indeed. Unfortunately, there is no sign that this tragedy having befallen the Armenians will subside, and the harmful and hateful effects of their genocide religion and terrorist ideology will keep going strong.
What of Non-Armenian Genocide Adherents?
As the writer Charles Krauthammer brilliantly put it in an Oct. 19, 2007 essay of his, “On genocide, fools rush in.” (Before he went on to prove himself just such a fool, as he mindlessly parroted: “That between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians were brutally and systematically massacred starting in 1915 in a deliberate genocidal campaign is a matter of simple historical record.") Genocide makes people lose all sense of reason, because we all know genocide is "bad." When noble-appearing "genocide scholars" decree certain conflicts as genocides, frequently by using selective information and hypocritically by ignoring other historical "genocidal" conflicts not in support of their agendas, fools rush in. The fools do so, without asking any questions, because to the fools, not doing so will make them come across as immoral "deniers" on a par with neo-Nazi cranks who deny the Holocaust, and also agreeing with genocide conclusions makes us easy "moralists." Our consciences feel so good when we affirm genocides; it's like we are doing something good, when we voice our outrage.
Naturally, by not examining the real facts, and by not questioning the motives of dishonest and/or sanctimonious genocide scholars who are anything but moral, what these mindless genocide supporters wind up doing is affirming the racism and hatred directed against the designated genocide perpetrators. The fools who rush in think they are being moral, but by not substantiating the facts, they actually wind up being anything but moral. Unfortunately, by succumbing to the power of the genocide cult, such fools will only realize the harm they are causing if they should ever wind up on the end of the stick they are so content to put others at; that is, if they should ever be unfairly accused of a crime, based on hearsay and falsehoods. (Then they would be reacquiainted with the basic meaning of the word, "denier.")
When one visits forums referring to the "Armenian genocide," one can understand what drives the Armenian contributors. Genocide serves as the life-sustaining nectar to their existence, and these extremists among Armenians can't help themselves. But what about the non-Armenians? It is simply jolting to see how many seemingly intelligent and "neutral" people compete with the Armenians, in their genocide obsession, and intolerance of the real facts. The atmosphere in these forums is often nothing short of evangelical, once again demonstrating genocide-mania is faith-based, and the facts are to be regarded as annoyances. Those who are not emotionally committed and are honorable would stop and say, hold on a minute; maybe what I've been told has not been the real truth after all.
But these genocide adherents from general walks of life, that is, the non-Armenian odars (outsiders), can't bring themselves to stop and think. In the Armenian case, partly that has to do with prejudice against Turks (The notion that Turks are barbarians is instilled in Western societies), but mainly it's the emotional commitment. Indeed, for these people, often liberal, do-gooding people (who traditionally and ironically value the concept of keeping an open mind, as opposed to the stereotype of conservatives), genocide has become a cult in its own right.
"As long as reason can be eclipsed by faith, there will be those who use religion to exploit, and those who give up their free will to a charismatic cult leader."
The cult leaders have become the genocide scholars. Those such as Samantha Power are simply idolized. The list of "intellectuals" who have mindlessly lauded her book is simply shocking! When they read the "Armenian" chapter of her book, a book that naturally won an award thanks to the "fools" on the Pulitzer board, didn't they (many were from the ranks of the top journalists of the country, too) stop and think about the ridiculous sources that were utilized? They simply could not; their brains feverishly turned to mush. Part of it may have had to do with wishing to come across as "moral" (any criticism could risk charges of being a Nazi-sympathizer), but mostly, genocide has become such a "religion," those charismatic cult leaders as Samantha Power must be supported at all costs.
TIME Magazine even gave Ms. Power a job as a columnist, where the managing editor gushed over how Power was "uniquely equipped to think though...[a] morality tale." The genocide-hating Samantha Power is more moral than the rest of us, in other words, and we must listen more carefully to what she has to say. She's like a God!
Debra Tate, victim's rights advocate.
She is the sister of the late Sharon Tate.
It's not just Samantha Power; all genocide scholars, in varying degrees, have this aura of saintliness (and when one has had an image of sainthood to begin with, like Elie Wiesel, forget it; any "genocide judgment" he makes must be accepted at face value), and we must listen to them, and accept whatever they tell us without criticism. They are more moral than the rest of us, simply because they have made a point of condemning the worst crime against humanity. No wonder then, that just as fools rush in among us commoners, when it comes to genocide, not-so-foolish "scholars" rush in to specialize in genocide . It's become a highly profitable industry, for one thing, and there is nothing like being looked up to as a great moralist and defender of "human rights."
Unfortunately, these genocide scholars who value faith above reason use their religion to exploit, knowing the rest of the dunderheads will, in a sense, "give up their free will," and fall in line.
"Police only step in after laws have been broken and in the world of the cult, this is often too late."
The laws being broken in this case would be those mainly unwritten ones against "Rufmord," the murdering of one's reputation. Thus, not only are the peoples and nations branded as genocide perpetrators, on no factual evidence and through manipulation and forgeries, subjected to racism and hatred, but the "Police" who step in — those who warn the fools not to hastily rush in — are also subjected to smear campaigns, and prove ineffectual to offset what has become the immense power of the genocide cult. We are often not dealing with "reason" here, after all; it is difficult to talk sense to those who have been overtaken by faith.
"The key to preventing tragedy is the individual confronting and defying the power of the cult."
The key individuals to rely on to prevent the tragedy and negative consequences of propaganda and hatred being perpetuated through the genocide cult would be genuine historians. But where are they? Many have been intimidated by the unscrupulous tactics of the genocide scholars, and won't come near the Armenian minefield. Worse, some who are respectable historians either fall under the spell of the cult, forgetting the rules of honest history (as Norman Naimark), and some actually appear to have adopted an "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy (as Donald Quataert; see both referred to, here.) We would also rely on journalists, whose duty involves asking questions. Yet, when it comes to the "Armenian genocide," Edward R. Murrows are rarer than a June bug in January's North Pole. Reporters fall all over themselves in accepting what the genocide cult tells them, repeating the propaganda verbatim. Twenty years ago, responsible journalists would add the word "alleged" before "Armenian genocide," but the genocide cult has grown too strong; now we're lucky when the foolish line "Only Turkey denies the genocide" is added for "balance." By all means, some publications have not lost their "free will," but are scared stiff of the attacks of bullying Armenians (as Harut Sassounian) and their organizations (as "Don't stop until you make them cry" ANCA). Courageous and honorable individuals confronting and defying the power of the genocide cult have become great rarities, indeed.
© Holdwater
The source site of this article gets revised often, as better information comes along. For the most up-to-date version, links and the related photos, the reader may consider reviewing the direct link as follows:www.tallarmeniantale.com/cult.htm
