as i see it - Pt. IV

[ara baliozian]

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

 

J. Robert Oppenheimer (quoting the Bhagavad Gita)

 

scientific know-how can kill in the same way that a gun or a knife can kill.

einstein was not a killer and he was not the kind of man who would harm anyone in defense of his theories.

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

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

Sometimes I am tempted to affix the following message at the end of everything I write: "Please, do not insult the scribbler, he is doing his best."

*

More often than not all Armenian arguments do is polarize the participants. On reconsideration I wish to amend my answers to all the counter-arguments and questions I have been asked so far to: "You may be right," "I am not sure," "I don't know," and "No comment."

*

Since the Great Powers of the West have not apologized for their meddling in our affairs, in what way are they better than Turks are?

*

Because our dime-a-dozen pundits keep saying Turks are nasty folk, they are okay. But because I keep saying we are not perfect, I am guilty of both repeating myself and being wrong.

#

[Takoush]

Since the Great Powers of the West have not apologized for their meddling in our affairs, in what way are they better than Turks are?

*

I agree with this statement!!!!

 

The Great Powers are the biggest BS ers and all they do is make matters worse and play their bitchy evil politics to accommodate themselves, and at the end make us suffer more and more.

 

I find that very evil on their part.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, December 08, 2005

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

In his latest book, THE DRAGONS OF EXPECTATION (London: Duckworth, 256 pages, 2005) Robert Conquest writes about a certain type of idealists or members of “an intellectually semi-educated class,” who become so engrossed in present evils which they can see that “their brains entirely fail to register the political evils – so much less easy to discern – of panaceas being peddled to replace them.” Thus it was that our revolutionaries in the Ottoman Empire, while clearly seeing the evil of oppression, chose not to recognize the probability of genocide.

*

It took courage to challenge the might of the Empire; it will take greater courage to admit it was a blunder.

*

Serial killers and crime lords are less dangerous to society than well-meaning and respectable political leaders who do not question their fundamental decency, logic, and infallibility.

*

Nobody is as smart as he thinks he is. I would have been a happier man had I assumed to be an idiot. Likewise, the world will be a better place if leaders assume to be fools.

#

[ara baliozian]

I agree with this statement!!!!

 

The Great Powers are the biggest BS ers and all they do is make matters worse and play their bitchy evil politics to accommodate themselves, and at the end make us suffer more and more.

 

I find that very evil on their part.

 

what about us? shouldn't our leaders plead guilty to the charge of being gullible and naive?

[Takoush]

what about us? shouldn't our leaders plead guilty to the charge of being gullible and naive?

I may very well agree with you; but could you expand a little about it?

 

Let me put the question this way. What do you think is the lesser of two evils. By that I mean what type of politicians or political standing you think we for instance as a nation should've, could've had. Or that we should, demand or seek to have? I mean for the future as well.

 

I know there has been many many blunders; especially when we cannot afford 2 or 3 political idealisms -'gousagtsoutyouns; when we are soooooooo little in numbers; and yet sometimes they even killed each other mercilessly, stupidly and unnecessarily. And for this, yes I agree with you that they should plead guilty, and I also think that other times they have been gullible and or naive as you put it, especially when fighting against a government however merciless they have been at times; but unfortunately when there's a whole population still living there, you cannot do much, I mean voicing yourself or even getting your revenge, except deporting your people elsewhere to other countries or really being super organized and fighting such as one country against another. But if not possible, one unfortunately however bad the situation would have to grin and bear it; or get the heck out of there. I mean everyone concerned. Looking back to the whole picture, I'd say yes that's what should've happened. And that's how they should have acted. (The politicians). And for this yes, they have acted with naivete; and I am afraid us the people have lost it all.

 

Unfortunately one thing I must agree with you to be mature about this is that most politicians are evil I am afraid. They don't have good names for a good reason. I have seen yet very little even in the past that they came out bearing good standing and names. One of them is of the past President Lincoln for me and the father of this country George Washington who gave his right to be a King for Democracy's sake. Other than that, I don't think of any right now that I may take my hats off for any politician. Oh yes, the other is Ghandi. That's it.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[ED]

We, our politicians failed to learn from the history, some go out of there ways and calling for all out war with our enemies yet we can not sustain a united protest at April24th, or in any other event where united voice should be heard. Take a look at the last telethon. we as a nation don’t have faith in governing central state, historically Armenia has been ruled most part by a occupying power and hence enforcing there laws, skepticism is very real and alive among us, ask around the table what a wonderful thing is happening in Artsax by building roads and schools etc.....and you'll encounter skeptics with a negative tone

 

its a phenomena and a mystery which will accompany us for a long time to come, changes in a society comes very slowly and gradually, progression with times contribute positively among the young and new, this is where we have to invest, in our young and do everything to prevent the same ideology from spooning into there thinking

[Takoush]

Thank you for your input Edward.

 

And you are quite right, we have had the voice of doom among us and it has been unfortunate. I fully agree in your sound thinking to put our hope in our young and educated youth. Let them not follow their predecessors and go on in life with a much more positive outlook in life and about their land. Right on!

[ara baliozian]

Friday, December 09, 2005

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

WRITERS

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

There are writers that I love to read, and writers, like Dostoevsky and Simenon, that become obsessions.

*

SIMENON

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

There are two things that fascinate me about Simenon: his profoundly human and universally accessible fictional characters, and the fact that he could write a book in a week. No one knows how many books he has written – some say 500, others 650 – because he wrote under several pseudonyms. His books may be divided into three distinct categories: detective stories (also known as “maigrets”), straight novels (also known as “simenons”), and autobiographical narratives and diaries, not all of which are available in English.

*

DOSTOEVSKY

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

What I find fascinating about Dostoevsky’s fiction is the clash of contradictory characters and the ensuing fireworks. I began reading him as a teenager and by the time I was twenty I had read all his major works in Italian and Greek translations. Though I have tried to reread him in English I have never gone beyond page 3. I prefer to read studies of his life and work, of which there is a steady stream. Generally speaking, I find biographies of the major Russians (Pushkin, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Turgenev) more absorbing than their fiction.

*

MANN AND TOYNBEE

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

Two other writers who became obsessions that lasted several years are Thomas Mann and Arnold J. Toynbee. What I value about them both is their thoroughly anti-establishment stance – though they were themselves products of the establishment. But this is true of all authentic thinkers, from Plato to Bertrand Russell.

*

ZARIAN

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

Among Armenians, the writer that has fascinated me the most is Gostan Zarian, but unlike the great Russians, so far he has had no biographer, which is a pity since his life on three continents and encounters with many major figures in world literature fully deserves several voluminous studies.

#

[ara baliozian]

I may very well agree with you; but could you expand a little about it?

 

Let me put the question this way. What do you think is the lesser of two evils. By that I mean what type of politicians or political standing you think we for instance as a nation should've, could've had. Or that we should, demand or seek to have? I mean for the future as well.

 

I know there has been many many blunders; especially when we cannot afford 2 or 3 political idealisms -'gousagtsoutyouns; when we are soooooooo little in numbers; and yet sometimes they even killed each other mercilessly, stupidly and unnecessarily. And for this, yes I agree with you that they should plead guilty, and I also think that other times they have been gullible and or naive as you put it, especially when fighting against a government however merciless they have been at times; but unfortunately when there's a whole population still living there, you cannot do much, I mean voicing yourself or even getting your revenge, except deporting your people elsewhere to other countries or really being super organized and fighting such as one country against another. But if not possible, one unfortunately however bad the situation would have to grin and bear it; or get the heck out of there. I mean everyone concerned. Looking back to the whole picture, I'd say yes that's what should've happened. And that's how they should have acted. (The politicians). And for this yes, they have acted with naivete; and I am afraid us the people have lost it all.

 

Unfortunately one thing I must agree with you to be mature about this is that most politicians are evil I am afraid. They don't have good names for a good reason. I have seen yet very little even in the past that they came out bearing good standing and names. One of them is of the past President Lincoln for me and the father of this country George Washington who gave his right to be a King for Democracy's sake. Other than that, I don't think of any right now that I may take my hats off for any politician. Oh yes, the other is Ghandi. That's it.

 

Good leadership has been defined as the ability to see the other side of the hill -- or what will be the result of a policy. Of course no one is a prophet but no one is also blind. Our leaders at the turn of the century in the Ottoman Empire were warned by many others leaders and observers (both armenian and odar) that their actions will lead to wholesale massacres but they were too drunk with their fututre powers and present illusions to listen.... The Israelis have had competent leaders; Gandhi and Nehru also qualify as good leaders...though not perfect.

[Takoush]

Good leadership has been defined as the ability to see the other side of the hill -- or what will be the result of a policy. Of course no one is a prophet but no one is also blind. Our leaders at the turn of the century in the Ottoman Empire were warned by many others leaders and observers (both armenian and odar) that their actions will lead to wholesale massacres but they were too drunk with their fututre powers and present illusions to listen.... The Israelis have had competent leaders; Gandhi and Nehru also qualify as good leaders...though not perfect.

I didn't know that our leaders in the turn of the century have been warned by odars to be careful. I remember about an Armenian Tashnagtsagan leader/Fedayi once said that he should commit the avenging attack but then claim it as coming only from a few of them and himself and then he'll be killed. But unfortunately the others didn't agree to this I think. I believe such as the story in a nut shell. However I never knew about odars also having warned our leaders. It is really too bad, and too bad for the loss of so much and so many, including yours and my anscestors.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[Armen]

scientific know-how can kill in the same way that a gun or a knife can kill.

einstein was not a killer and he was not the kind of man who would harm anyone in defense of his theories.

 

No, scienitifc know-how kills in large mass. Some part of this "know-how" is a know-how-to-eliminate-humanity as-a-type. And this was invented by "scientists" who didn't stand the temptation. Moreover, they knew exactly what they were doing. They are a much more dangerous people than a simple thief that can kill with a gun or a knife.

[Arpa]

Good leadership has been defined as the ability to see the other side of the hill -- or what will be the result of a policy. Of course no one is a prophet but no one is also blind. Our leaders at the turn of the century in the Ottoman Empire were warned by many others leaders and observers (both armenian and odar) that their actions will lead to wholesale massacres but they were too drunk with their fututre powers and present illusions to listen.... The Israelis have had competent leaders; Gandhi and Nehru also qualify as good leaders...though not perfect.

Yet another piece of garbage.

We thought we had seen every denialist crap.

Was that a warning or a "promise"?

[ara baliozian]

No, scienitifc know-how kills in large mass. Some part of this "know-how" is a know-how-to-eliminate-humanity as-a-type. And this was invented by "scientists" who didn't stand the temptation. Moreover, they knew exactly what they were doing. They are a much more dangerous people than a simple thief that can kill with a gun or a knife.

 

Armen:

 

more people have died as victims of floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, religious wars, and acts of god than as victims of scientists... / ara

Edited December 11, 2005 by ara baliozian

[ara baliozian]

Yet another piece of garbage.

We thought we had seen every denialist crap.

Was that a warning or a "promise"?

 

i have at no time denied the genocide.

i have even written a book on the subject.

are you sure you know what you are saying? / ara

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, December 11, 2005

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

CRIME STORIES

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

In thrillers, or mystery, suspense and crime novels the question is who is the murderer? In psychoanalysis, what is the complex? The question historians try to answer is, what happened and why? In philosophy, what is the meaning of life, or why things exist?

*

In his old age, Bertrand Russell used to read a crime novel a day (by judiciously skipping descriptive passages whose sole aim is to lend an air of authenticity to the plot and character, it can be done).

*

In his memoirs Sartre writes that he prefers reading crime novels to Wittgenstein, perhaps because the answers provided by even the ablest philosophers are never as certain as those to be found in crime fiction.

*

Propaganda has this in common with Hollywood movies and bad fiction in general: it divides characters into good and bad guys. It has been said that in a good play or work of fiction, as in life, the line between decent folk and villains is blurred.

*

In his efforts to explain the Armenian Genocide, Toynbee advanced the theory that the source of evil is in all of us and it is called original sin. Given the right or wrong combination of circumstances, we, all of us, are capable of behaving like Turks; or, as Puzant Granian once put it more bluntly, “There is a Turk in all of us.”

*

My fascination with crime fiction began with Edgar Alan Poe and Conan Doyle. Some of the most unforgettable titles in the genre that I have read and sometimes reread are:

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT by Dostoevsky,

THE KILLERS, by Hemingway,

DEAD YELLOW WOMEN by Dashiell Hammett,

FAREWELL MY LOVELY by Raymond Chandler,

A COFFIN FOR DIMITRIOS by Eric Ambler,

THE GOUFFE CASE by Joachim Maass,

NOCTURNE by Ed McBain,

POINT BLANK by Richard Stark, and

GRIEVANCE by K.C. Constantine.

#

[Takoush]

When I have a chance I would like to read the said books or rather the stories as I am also fascinated with both philosophical books and crime stories.

 

However, I also apologize if I said it before; but I don't agree with that thinking about the Turks. I really think that the Turks proved themselves throughout history to be in a class of their own. They are much more than villains, merciless killers and extremely aggressive bunch of a crowd; not even worthy of having been or to be called a nationality. They are like a bunch of dirty scoundrels and inhumane bunch of inhumans, and they also go by instincts.

 

I believe it was Victor Hugo that once said:

 

"Whenever the Turks have conquered or have walked through, they have left behind them merciless killings, blood, sorrow and enormous pain".

 

I believe about these said words. Whenever or wherever Turks went by, enormous and mercilless killings took place by them; as they have left behind them massacres, much blood and sorrow.

Edited December 11, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[ara baliozian]

Monday, December 12, 2005

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

PARANOIA

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

Once more I have been accused of being a denialist. Under Stalin this type of baseless and irresponsible accusation landed countless innocent people into the Gulag.

*

I ceased being a proud Armenian on the day a proud Armenian insulted me in the name of Armenianism.

*

When Descartes said, “I think therefore I am,” he shifted human consciousness from god-centered (theocentric) to man-centered (humanist) and in doing so he ushered in the Age of Enlightenment. In the Middle or Dark Ages a statement like “I think therefore I am” would have been unthinkable. Medieval philosophy, or rather theology, explained everything by invoking the name of god. I think and I am because god created me with a brain. The sky is blue because blue is god’s favorite color. The earth is the center of the solar system, not to say the universe, because man is god’s favorite creature.

*

When one of our weeklies of 19 pages publishes 16 articles and commentaries on Turks (I am not counting the letters to the editor), an objective observer would have no choice but to conclude that Armenian consciousness in the 21st Century has become Turco-centric -- a development that we owe to our massacrists (genocide scholars), hai-tahd peddlers, dime-a-dozen pundits and editorialists.

*

To have a Turco-centric consciousness means to have a consciousness that wallows in self-pity, hatred, and rage against an unjust world. It follows, in the same way that a paranoiac sees enemies lurking in every dark corner, a Turco-centric Armenian sees denialists everywhere and he does so with the unshakable conviction that he is discharging his patriotic duty.

#

[Takoush]

Monday, December 12, 2005

*

To have a Turco-centric consciousness means to have a consciousness that wallows in self-pity, hatred, and rage against an unjust world. It follows, in the same way that a paranoiac sees enemies lurking in every dark corner, a Turco-centric Armenian sees denialists everywhere and he does so with the unshakable conviction that he is discharging his patriotic duty.

#

So, if I don't love theTurkish government and what they have done to my people, then I shall be assumed to be afraid of denialists coming from every corner and that I have a lot of rage and hatred in my heart against an unjust world? It's funny, but I don't. Mostly I have been told that I am a lovable person, with a lot of love in my heart and for all people from all walks of life. I love life and I love people and I love to help people at any given time when they need me. This is true. If anyone lives with me or around me will know that what I am saying is the complete truth.

 

The funny part is that I do not preoccupy myself with Turks. Not at all. I have dealt with them every now and then when I came across them; and I have always been very civil with them. I have never been afraid of any Turk, much less being afraid of them or anyone else coming from any corner of my life, the contrary. However, I have a big problem with their government and the way they continue to deny such a humonguous crime of the 20th century for 90 + years now. They have continued to deny the genocide and they continue to do so till this minute that we're writing to each other. Now, I have a problem with that.

 

You said that you wrote a book on Genocide, I believe you and I would like it if I can read what you have wrote about. However, you are deadly wrong if you think that I have any paranoia or any hatred in my character. The contrary, as I loooooove life and I looooooove people. All people on earth. Someone like that certainly cannot have any fright or any hatred in their heart. And I most certainly do not. Thank goodness.

 

I hope you know what you are saying.

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

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

XENOPHOBIA

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

“Xenophobia assassinates life,” writes Carlos Fuentes in his latest book, THIS I BELIEVE: AN A TO Z OF LIFE (New York, Random House, 331 pages, 2005). For us, the quintessential alien is the Turk. But as far as I can see, after 600 years of cohabitation, the only discernible difference between them and us is that we are not guilty of genocide.

*

What motivated the Turks to exterminate us was xenophobia, and they were afraid of us because they thought we (as opposed to a small and non-representative group of revolutionaries), together with Kurds, Greeks, Russians, and the Great Powers of the West, threatened the integrity of their homeland.

*

Fuentes goes on: “The lesson of our unfinished humanity is that when we exclude we are made poorer, and when we include we are made richer.”

*

If xenophobia is assassination, our xenophobia of Turks may be said to be a bloodless genocide.

*

We cannot exorcise the Turk within us by hating him or by refusing to acknowledge his existence. He is there and he has been there all along, and he will continue to be the dominant factor in our collective existence until we come to terms with the fact that the reason why we are not guilty of genocide is rooted not in moral superiority but in military inferiority.

#

[ara baliozian]

So, if I don't love theTurkish government and what they have done to my people, then I shall be assumed to be afraid of denialists coming from every corner and that I have a lot of rage and hatred in my heart against an unjust world? It's funny, but I don't. Mostly I have been told that I am a lovable person, with a lot of love in my heart and for all people from all walks of life. I love life and I love people and I love to help people at any given time when they need me. This is true. If anyone lives with me or around me will know that what I am saying is the complete truth.

 

The funny part is that I do not preoccupy myself with Turks. Not at all. I have dealt with them every now and then when I came across them; and I have always been very civil with them. I have never been afraid of any Turk, much less being afraid of them or anyone else coming from any corner of my life, the contrary. However, I have a big problem with their government and the way they continue to deny such a humonguous crime of the 20th century for 90 + years now. They have continued to deny the genocide and they continue to do so till this minute that we're writing to each other. Now, I have a problem with that.

 

You said that you wrote a book on Genocide, I believe you and I would like it if I can read what you have wrote about. However, you are deadly wrong if you think that I have any paranoia or any hatred in my character. The contrary, as I loooooove life and I looooooove people. All people on earth. Someone like that certainly cannot have any fright or any hatred in their heart. And I most certainly do not. Thank goodness.

 

I hope you know what you are saying.

 

it should be obvious to all, especially you,

that what i wrote does not apply to you personally. / ara

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

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

Faith is the greatest deceiver. To say "I believe therefore it's true" has been the biggest and most dangerous lie ever invented by man.

*

Why did Toynbee change his mind? Why is it that after writing several books on the tyranny of the Turks and the Armenian massacres he became a Turcophile? Even so, it should be noted, repeated, and emphasized that he at no time went as far as denying the reality of the Genocide. On the contrary - very much on the contrary - he went on saying and repeating in nearly every other book he wrote that the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust were the two greatest crimes of the 20th Century.

*

I like these lines from THIS I BELIEVE by Carlos Fuentes: "There are more idols than realities in this world of ours, and convictions have a tendency to be prisons."

*

Perhaps Toynbee knew something we don't know, one of which is that history is nothing but an endless catalogue of atrocities, truth is our common enemy, and politicians, regardless of race, color, creed, or tribe, speak with a forked tongue.

*

Toynbee probably agreed with Pascal when the latter said: "What a chimera then is man! What a novelty, what monsters! Chaotic, contradictory, prodigious, judging everything, mindless worm of the earth. Storehouse of truth, cesspool of uncertainty and error; glory and reject of the universe!"

*

Please note that I am not questioning the innocence of our victims. What I would like to question however is the motives of our politicians and the integrity of historians who recycle the party line, any party line. And whenever I think of our politicians I remember Gostan Zarian's dictum: "Our political parties have been of no political use to us; their greatest enemy is free speech." And they have every reason to be afraid of free speech because free speech may expose their blunders.

*

No man exposes his shortcomings as transparently and surely as the man who adopts a holier-than-thou stance.

#

[Armen]

Armen:

more people have died as victims of floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, religious wars, and acts of god than as victims of scientists... / ara

 

This record is rapidly changing. The reasons of two world wars of the last century were based on the economic interests of an existing and rising empires that used different ideologies to achieve these interests. Economic thinking is based on natural sceince. The number of victims of two world wars together makes something like 60 mln people or more. I think the number of victims over 3 centuries of floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, religious wars would not make that much.

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, December 15, 2005

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

There seems to be an unspoken law among us that says, “If you disagree with me, you are my enemy.” Result? We have three sets of enemies: Turks, the corrupt West, and a fraction of our fellow Armenians. Whoever first said “Mart bidi chellank” (We will never acquire the status of human beings) fully qualifies as one of our major prophets.

*

To say or to imply “If you contradict me you are my enemy,” is a fallacy based on another fallacy, namely, “I know and understand all I need to know and understand,” which happens to be the unspoken assumption of all tyrants and fascist dictators. It follows, all dissidents and critics are enemies of the people and they don’t deserve to live.

*

People who say they know and understand all they need to know and understand, usually rely on someone else’s knowledge and understanding, which means that their knowledge is inadmissible because based on hearsay.

*

Stalin relied on Marx and completely ignored Marx’s statement “I am not a Marxist.” He also ignored one of Marx’s central pillars of thought, that of dialectic, which means dialogue, and dialogue is possible only when contradiction (or antithesis) is allowed to follow assertion (or thesis). And because Stalin ignored that aspect of the Marxist system, his empire collapsed and the Soviets “mart cheghan.”

*

There are two approaches to our genocide: to ascribe it (one) to pure evil, and (two) to historic, social, and cultural conditions. When Toynbee first wrote about the Genocide he ascribed it to pure evil. But when he studied the Turkish side of the story by making Turkish friends and learning the Turkish language, he realized the Genocide was an occurrence that could be explained and understood. However, he at no time said or implied that to explain is to justify – which is where we tend to go wrong. Whenever someone tries to explain the Genocide we accuse him of being a denialist (among us, the lowest form of animal life). And worse, we call him an enemy, and in doing so we condemn ourselves to have three sets of enemies, in other words, to be perennial losers.

*

If we call the Turks Asiatic barbarians, what do we call the Nazis? European barbarians? What do we call Americans (in relation to their treatment of natives and blacks)? American barbarians? What do we call Stalin (a next door neighbor)? A Caucasian barbarian? What do we call Mao, compared to whom, Stalin was only an amateur serial killer, (according to a recent biography).

*

The list of crimes against humanity is endless and they all begin in the convolutions of the brain, and to call a fellow Armenian an enemy, and worse, to silence him – as our “betters” do – is the mother of all crimes against humanity.

#

[ara baliozian]

This record is rapidly changing. The reasons of two world wars of the last century were based on the economic interests of an existing and rising empires that used different ideologies to achieve these interests. Economic thinking is based on natural sceince. The number of victims of two world wars together makes something like 60 mln people or more. I think the number of victims over 3 centuries of floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, religious wars would not make that much.

 

why isolate the last 3 centuries?

why not the last thousand centires?

and scientists did not invent the destructive power of the atom. they only discovered it. which means they uncovered something that was there already -- placed by whom? by nature or rather, if you believe in god, by god, no? why did god bury such a destructing power in the atom?