Rwanda and The Holocaust Industry

Rwanda and The Holocaust Industry

[Evidence has recently come to light about the real causes and beneficiaries of what are commonly referred to as ‘the last great genocides of the 20th Century’: Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Kosovo), Iraq (White Kurdistan), and Central Africa (Rwanda, but not Congo)—and since the turn of the Millennium, one can add Sudan (Darfur) to this rap sheet of Man’s inhumanity to man.

First, as to the beneficiaries: If anyone can find any major military installations in these regions that fly the flag of any major power other than the US, please let us know here at CM/P, because we’re about to burn out looking for large al Qaeda air bases in Bosnia, or PFLF artillery implacements in Iraqi Kurdistan. And more than anything else, concern over causes and preventions of these much ballyhooed mass exterminations seems to be whipped and frothed by the mawkish promotional ministrations of a certain well-heeled lobby led primarily and incongruously by Liberal Zionists, Conservative Christians and various Social-Democratic and Green groups, with its roots deep in the Victims’ Rights Movement of the 1960s and its founding paradigm, The Holocaust Industry.

Events such as those purported to have gone down in places like Srebrenica, Habjala, and Rwanda, have been used consistently by the Shoah Business and the Stop The Fucking Genocide gin game, with their nail-glossed and botox-stretched spokespeople, like George Clooney and Angelina Jolie, as vaccinations against the growing body of scientific, historical and legal evidence that, to sample one of the subjects of this discussion, Robin Philpot, ça ne s’est pas passé comme ça . . . (It didn’t happen that way . . . ), as inoculations to boost the immunity of today’s Mega-Waste Makers, the mass-marketers of militarization and immiseration, against any and all critical scrutiny, to the extent that presently, in the EU, it has become a crime punishable by 2 years imprisonment to ‘deny The Holocaust in whole or in part’. Even God His- or Herself doesn’t have the juice to bring on that kind of protection.

So when someone points out the ‘new and improved Obvious’, the truth as substantiated by historical analysis based on a decade or more of investigation and examination through (albeit legally unfounded) judicial processes before the UN ad hocs or through the research of national commissions and investigating judges or independent scholars—whether it’s the admission by its self-proclaimed discoverers that they had faked their findings and that the HIV retro-virus has never been isolated in a single patient and, therefore, could not rightly be said to ‘cause’ anything; or the presentation before a shuddering and terror-blinded world of photographic evidence, photographs taken by the US government and their mainstream media, that there was no possibility of an airliner being involved in the ‘attack’ on the Pentagon; or the testimony of dozens of witnesses, including their confessions to crimes charged against others, that the mass killings in Rwanda (which extended far beyond the ICTR’s evidentiary boundaries of January to July 1994) were not the result of a planned and premeditated extermination, a genocide of any racial, ethnic or tribal group, in whole or in part, by the Rwandan government of the murdered president Juvénal Habyarimana, the Interim Government that replaced it, led by PM Jean Kambanda (who, contrary to the contention made by Dr. John Laughlin in his delightful book, Travesty, that this leprous spot should go to President Slobodan Milosevic, was, in fact, the first head of state to face war crimes unto genocide charges before an ad hoc UN tribunal), the Interahamwe, party youth football club turned civil defense force, or, and especially, the French government and its army—messengers bearing this kind of new evidence, evidence contradicting the well-massaged, well-rehearsed, well-oiled and totally befuddled popular consensus, will be treated in the same manner their ilk has always been treated: they’ll be slandered as historical revisionists, libeled as anti-Semites and holocaust deniers, their characters will be assassinated and, if necessary, as in the cases of duly-elected Presidents Habyarimana, Milosevic and Saddam, they will have their hearts, along with those of countless of their kith and kin, torn, still beating, from their chests, and flung by their craven and mendacious murderers to that pack of yelping jackals that the advanced Waste Culture has selected and formed as its stupefied public—their being the only folks who can stomach the putrescent carrion that passes for beauty and truth, for liberty and justice for all these days.

So here is a small example of how the Humanitarian Genocide lobby works: The article below is by Gerald Caplan and from Canada’s The Globe and Mail. Caplan, whose name is all over the Canadian Jewish Congress web page, is concerned that Robin Philpot, whose “Ça ne s’est pas passé comme ça à Kigali” (2003~Les Intouchables), which has recently been translated into English as “Old Colonialism Dies Hard”, with a complete text available on Phil Taylor’s site, The Taylor Report, linked on the right margin of this blog, has not sufficiently explained what he meant when he said the Rwandan Genocide of 100 days didn’t happen as advertised by the Human Rights/Victims’ Rights lobby. So this got our attorney, Chris Black, who has been arguing for the defense of our General Augustin Ndindiliyimana before the UN tribunal in Arusha, on the case. And here is the exchange that ensued.

—Remember the question posed elsewhere on this blog: In light of all this new evidence indicating that the HRsters have been blowing noxious smoke to cover for the US/UK/Israeli militarization of the planet, how are these geeks and charlatans now going to trim and spin their stories to get their victims back on the right side of the barbed wire fence? ‘Cause today, Fikret Alic’s big and strong—even a little smooth, one might say—so that when Penny Marshall did her up-date on her Big Lie ITN piece on the Bosnian Serb ‘death camps’, she made sure ol’ Fikret was shown shugging plenty a the meds he has been forced to live on because of his horrific experience at the hands of the Bosnian Serbs at Trnopolje.

–But, whoa ! High and inside. Another story for another time.

First is the story from The Globe and Mail ; then Chris’ rejoinder ; then a couple bonus features.

Enjoy, and let the truth speak for itself—if it’s not too late. –mc]

**************************************


The Globe and Mail (Canada)
March 13, 2007 Tuesday
SECTION: COMMENT; Pg. A15
HEADLINE: Rwanda's genocide: First the deed, then the denial
BYLINE: GERALD CAPLAN

The genocidal pattern never varies, though the deniers' motives are mixed. They run a gamut from the obvious - to escape punishment - to the geopolitical, to the incomprehensible. But deniers there always are. The Turkish nation, led by its government and military, overwhelmingly denies the consensus of objective scholarship - that the Turkish government in 1915 set out to annihilate the country's Armenian population and murdered more than a million of them. Neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, some anti-Zionists and a motley crew of the demented to this day deny the reality of Hitler's extermination of six million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Europe's Roma people, very possibly the best-documented event in modern history. Many Serbians deny the responsibility of other Serbians for what two international tribunals have ruled was the genocide of Bosnian Muslim males in Srebrenica.

Then there is Rwanda. It is a statement of fact that every scholar who has studied the 1994 conflict in Rwanda has concluded that a small, sophisticated group of power-hungry Hutu extremists conspired to exterminate the country's entire Tutsi population, and very nearly succeeded. The number of books and detailed studies increases at a welcome pace, and while there is disagreement about many aspects of Rwanda's 100 days (as there is too with all its forerunners), the central truth is not in doubt. Denying the genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda is morally equivalent to denying the Holocaust.

Rwanda's deniers, exhibiting the usual mixture of self-serving and perverse motives, fall generally into two categories. First are Hutu Power sympathizers and outsiders with close ties to the long-serving Rwandan regime whose extremist core planned the genocide. Second are newcomers to Rwanda whose first introduction was as attorneys (or their associates) for those accused of genocide being tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). All accused everywhere should have the right to a rigorous defence. But some among this group made the giant leap from arguing that their clients were innocent of the crime of genocide to
arguing that no genocide had been carried out at all.

Bizarrely enough, a number of these deniers are left-wing Canadian lawyers and investigators, whose motives are as dim as their case is hollow. But Canada's most prominent non-Hutu denier for many years has been Robin Philpot, born in Ontario but long a resident of Montreal. Although Mr. Philpot lived in west Africa more than 30 years ago, his only apparent link to Rwanda is his brother John, who was a defence lawyer at the ICTR for a man convicted of genocide.

Robin Philpot believes there was no genocide in 1994. In many articles over the years - some published in English in the American left-wing journal Counterpunch, others in French in Quebec newspapers - and in a book translated into English as Rwanda 94: Colonialism Dies Hard - Mr. Philpot has insisted that what happened in Rwanda was part of a diabolical American plot to end French influence in the Great Lakes area of Africa. Paul Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front and General Roméo Dallaire, according to Mr. Philpot, were among the United States' chosen instruments in this cynical geopolitical game. Maybe this explains why certain self-styled leftists embrace Mr. Philpot's fantasies.

Mr. Philpot says many people were killed in 1994 by both sides making those who carried out the genocide and their enemies morally equivalent. There was no one-sided conspiracy by armed Hutu forces and militias against a million defenceless Tutsi, he says. Since the evidence completely contradicts these assertions, Mr. Philpot churns out a strange, incoherent series of assertions, rumours and speculation tied together solely by his unwavering determination to deny the truth.

Robin Philpot is now a candidate for the Parti Québécois in the provincial election. His Rwandan stance has become a campaign issue. Unlike him, both his leader André Boisclair and Premier Jean Charest accept history's verdict on the genocide. That left Mr. Philpot with limited options. He chose consistency. Having denied the genocide for so many years, he has now denied his denial. He insists that "at no time did I ever deny the existence of a genocide in Rwanda." Mr. Boisclair has said he is "very happy with the explanations" Mr. Philpot gave him and won't demand his resignation as a PQ candidate. Mr. Boisclair is too happy too easily.

Genocide experts understand denial as a second cruel ordeal for survivors and families of victims - first the event, then the pain and insult of denial. All of us need to demonstrate our sensitivity to this searing issue. At the very least, surely Mr. Philpot has lost his right to be embraced by a self-respecting political party.

Gerald Caplan is author of Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide.

******************************************

[Here’s Chris’ response:]

Editor, Globe and Mail,

Sir

I ask that this be published in full to respond to the defamatory piece by
Gerald Caplan entitled Rwanda's genocide: first the deed, then the denial
of March 13, 2007.


Rwanda: The Big Lie

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, the people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important
for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is
the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the
greatest enemy of the State." it is worth remembering the words of Dr.
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda when considering the
article by Gerald Caplan on the events in Rwanda in which he acts as
apologist for the RPF military dictatorship now oppressing that tragic
country.

Mr. Caplan states that Robin Philpot and left-wing, Canadian defence
lawyers deny there was a genocide and therefore must be condemned and Mr.
Philpot cast out of the Parti Quebecois. But it is not we who deny the
truth. It is Mr. Caplan.

Mr. Caplan tries to deny that it was the Tutsi-dominated Rwanda Patriotic
Front, the RPF, supported by Uganda, the United States, and Britain, who
started the war by invading Rwanda from Uganda in 1990 slaughtering over
40,000 mainly Hutu civilians before being pushed back across the border.
But he can't, because he knows it's true. He tries to deny that in 1991,
1992 and 1993 the RPF resorted to terrorism; attacks on Hutu civiians,
police posts, the placing of mines on roads, the sabotage of civilan and
government infrastructure, terrorism in which thousands of other Hutus
were brutally murdered and a million forced to flee their homes to escape
to the protection of the capital. But he can't, because he knows it's
true. He tries to deny that the RPF and its allies, including Mr. Caplan,
began a campaign of vicious hatred against the Rwandan government and the
Hutu majority people accusing them of human rights abuses many of which we
know now were either fabricated or committed by the RPF to discredit the
government. But he can't, becuase he knows its true. He tries to deny that
RPF hate radio, Radio Muhabura, financed by Britain, broadcast constant
hate propganda against the Rwandan government and the Hutu people. But he
can't, because he knows its true.

Mr. Caplan wants to deny that, despite and in violation of the peace
agreement that was reached between the parties under intense US pressure,
the RPF continued to engage in the asassination of Hutu elites, to
infiltrate thousands of soldiers and tons of heavy weapons into the
country and did so with the active complicity of the UN forces under the
command of Canadian General Romeo Dallaire. But he can't, because he
knows it's true.

Mr. Caplan wants to deny that it was the RPF who murdered the Hutu
president of Rwanda, the Hutu president of Burundi and the Rwandan Army
Chief of Staff and many others on the presidential plane that was shot
down by missiles over Kigali on the night of April 6, 1994, the first
massacre of the renewed war. But he can't. Becuase he know it's true.

Mr. Caplan wants to deny that the RPF then began its final offensive to
take power by force of arms as they knew they could never win a free and
fair election and that during that offensive they slaughtered up to two
million Hutus and those Tutsis of the interior thought to be in the way
and that after the war the RPF, with the assistance of people like Mr.
Caplan, propagated the myth of a genocide against the Tutsis to cover up
the slaughter of millions of people in Rwanda and, later to cover up the
slaughter of another 3 to 6 million people in the Congo in the aftermath.

Mr. Caplan wants to deny that RPF officers have testified to this effect
at the Rwanda War Crines Tribunal as have many other important witnesses
but be can't becuase he knows it true. He wants to protect the repressive,
racist, RPF military regime now in power in Rwanda from responsibility for
their crimes, but he can't because he knows what they did. He wants to
hide the sordid role of Canada in this affair, from General Dallaire, who
assisted the RPF in conducting its offensive in violation of his
supposedly neutral role, to Louise Arbour, who terminated the
investigation into the shootdown of the plane after she was told by her
chief investigtor, Australian lawyer, Michael Hourigan, that it was the
RPF which shot down the plane, not Hutu "extremists", and in which plot
the UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali stated the CIA was involved. But
he can't becuase he knows it true and that Louise Arbour should be charged
and tried for being an accessory to a war crime.

Mr. Caplan wants to hide the fact that the war in Rwanda was part of a
larger war against the Congo so that the US and its allies, including
Canada, could seize control of the immense mineral wealth contained in the
Congo using the RPF and Ugandan armies, with American military assistance,
as proxy armies to invade the Congo and occupy its territory, something
which the Hutu government had refused to countenance but which the
gangsters of the RPF welcomed. But he cannot, becuase he knows it is true.
And he knows that many objectve scholars and jurists and anyone who has
followed the trials at the ICTR know it is true as well and that many
books have now been published with the evidence. He also knows that the UN
Secretary-General, Boutros-Boutros Ghali stated that "The Americans are
one hundred percent responsible for what happened in Rwanda." But it is
not in the interests of Mr. Caplan and his friends to tell the truth abut
what happened in Rwanda. They prefer that the people of Rwanda suffer
under the murderous regime now in power in perpetuity, and all in the name
of the dollar. No, Mr. Caplan, it is not Mr. Philpot who should be
condemned, As one of the first to present the truth about Rwanda, he
should be saluted. No, Mr. Caplan, it is you who should hang your head in
shame.

Christopher Black
Barrister
Lead Counsel, General Augustin Ndindiliyimana,
Chief of Staff, Rwanda Gendarmerie
ICTR,
Toronto, Ontario

****************************************

[And, if you’ve still got the munchies, here something something for the ride home—info-snacks on the CJC:]

BONUS FEATURES:

Aug 30, 2004 - JTA

Group intervenes in Rwandan case


The Canadian Jewish Congress was granted intervener status in the case of Leon Mugesera, who allegedly delivered a speech in Rwanda in 1992 that incited hatred, murder and genocide. Canada’s Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration is contesting Mugesera’s application for residence because of the alleged speech. “CJC has strong feelings of empathy with the Rwandan community as fellow victims and survivors of genocide,” said Manuel Prutschi, the group’s national executive director.

“We wanted to participate to ensure that those involved in any way in perpetrating the atrocities which took place in Rwanda are brought to justice and are prevented from entering and remaining in Canada.”

The CJC has made numerous submissions to Canadian courts and has appeared as expert witnesses on many ground-breaking cases involving hate speech, war crimes and human rights.

****************************

Mar 09, 2007 - CJC, QR: PQ Statement on Philpot and Rwandan genocide unsatisfactory.

Montreal - Canadian Jewish Congress, Quebec Region (CJC, QR) believes the Parti Québécois press statement claiming Robin Philpot's views on the Rwandan genocide were misrepresented is unsatisfactory and fails to put the issue to rest.

"We welcome André Boisclair's unequivocal recognition of the Rwandan genocide. The PQ statement, however, is unsatisfactory and fails to put the issue to rest," said Canadian Jewish Congress, Quebec Region officer Michael Bergman.

"It is unacceptable for anyone to explain away with cunning words what undoubtedly constitutes one of the 20th century's genocides," Bergman added. "Philpot has much to explain to Quebec's Rwandan community and Boisclair must require him to do so publicly and fully."

Bergman concluded, "Any denial of this genocide is an attack on the whole global culture of human rights, whose intent it is to recognize past genocides not only to memorialize the victims and punish the perpetrators but also as way for the world to declare never again."

*******************************************