as i see it - Pt. IV

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

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

EITHER / OR

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

If we are unique, that’s because every individual, tribe, nation, or for that matter, snowflake and grain of sand is unique. Whether this uniqueness is an asset or a liability I will let you decide, provided you don’t adopt one of our ubiquitous dealers of chauvinist crapola as your guide. Speaking for myself, I will say that our uniqueness is not what concerns me. What concerns me is our problems and there is nothing – repeat, nothing -- unique about them. Corruption, incompetence, divisiveness, authoritarianism, prejudice, and intolerance are as old as mankind. So is unawareness of them or self-deception. We either confront our shortcomings and make an honest effort to overcome them or we pretend there is nothing we can do because they are an integral part of the human condition. Again, speaking for myself, I am all for calling a spade a spade, a charlatan a phony and a wheeler-dealer not a man of vision or a noble specimen of humanity but a low-life and a bottom feeder.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, December 20, 2007

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

 

NOTES / COMMENTS

 

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

Just when I think I am done with Armenians and their problems, a new one comes up or an old one that demands a novel approach. Who gives a damn about Armenians and their problems, anyway? Not even Armenians, it seems. I dream of the day when I will exhaust the subject and start writing love stories, adventure yarns, and murder mysteries. I love murder mysteries. I have read hundreds of Simenons… We all have our cross to bear. The smaller the nation, the heavier the cross.

*

If you want to convince a civilized man to behave like a barbarian, you tell him barbarians are at the gate even if there is no one there, and if there is one, he is either the gatekeeper or a harmless pilgrim.

*

Whenever I feel depressed, I console myself by saying that even those who hate me read me. Writers have this is common with women: they want to be irresistible.

*

Since there are no final answers, not even in science, every assertion is open to debate, provided of course the rules imposed on us by reason, common sense, common decency, and grammar are followed. And no one will ever succeed in convincing me that reason, common sense and decency, and grammar are anti-Armenian.

*

When I wrote flattering commentaries, I was published. When I wrote critical commentaries, I was published too. But when I started getting at the truth, I was silenced. Truth was my undoing.

*

I write for readers with an open mind. Not even the Good Lord can reach brainless idiots or, for that matter, brainy bastards. Consider the influence of the New Testament on the likes of Stalin (a seminarian) and his countless dupes, among them some very smart Armenians, like Anastas (ditto).

#

 

 

[ara baliozian]

Friday, December 21, 2007

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

NAREGATSI

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

He is one of those writers everyone praises but no one reads, except our academics who are unanimous in naming him our Dante and Shakespeare combined. But whereas every Italian and Englishman is brought up to learn a few lines from Dante and Shakespeare by heart, I have yet to meet the Armenian who can quote a single line from Naregatsi.

*

One reason Naregatsi is not a popular writer is that he cannot be said to be a cheerful fellow. His LAMENTATION is an endless catalogue of sins, failings, and vices. A typical passage reads: “I constantly have recourse to lies, / Never uttering the truth…/ I am diligent in malignant acts of ribaldry; / I am ever active in satanic inventions.”

*

In his INFERNO, Dante speaks of hell as if it were a real place. Naregatsi has a more modern, not to say, existential view on the subject. “Hell is me,” he seems to be saying. And if “hell is other people” (Sartre) it’s because there is a “me” in all of us. It follows, in the eyes of our holier-than-thou propagandists, Naregatsi is bad news. Because if we are as bad as Naregatsi tells us, then perhaps we deserved our fate. But Naregatsi does not write to promote self-loathing and despair. His final message is one of hope. Salvation is yours, he tells us, provided you plead guilty as charged and repent. Not exactly a condition that will be welcome by our charlatans who parade as paragons of virtue.

*

TWO FACTS

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

Naregatsi wrote in krapar (classical Armenian) but he is now available in both ashkharapar (the spoken idiom) and English (in an excellent translation by Mischa Kudian).

*

Naregatsi lived a thousand years ago, long before we were Ottomanized and Sovietized.

*

NARCISSISM

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

One way to define our holier-than-thou sanctimonious pricks and dealers in chauvinist crapola is to say, they are jackasses who believe, when they bray, they sound better than Pavarotti singing “Nessun dorma.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Have a nice xmas! / ara Edited December 22, 2007 by ara baliozian

[ara baliozian]

 

#

Saturday, December 22, 2007

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

MER HAIRENIK

TSHVAR, ANDER

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

How much of what I say is right? As a prejudiced observer I cannot be a reliable judge. You tell me! But instead of asking whether I am right, say, How right are those I quote and paraphrase, beginning with the Biblical dictum (“A house divided against itself cannot stand”) and Toynbee’s (“Civilizations are not killed, they commit suicide”).

*

As masters of the blame-game, our denialists assert they had nothing to do with our misfortunes, which amounts to saying, they reject all responsibility in shaping our tragic destiny, thus implying their role in our history has been that of nonentities or absentee landlords.

*

Writing in the 5th century, Movses Khorenatsi speaks of our divided and corrupt leadership (see his LAMENTATION, not to be confused with Naregatsi’s, which was written in the 10th century). Writing in the 20th century we have two distinguished witnesses who support Khorenatsi’s verdict: Avedik Issahakian (“our brainless leaders”) and Zarian (“Our political parties have been of no political use to us. Their greatest enemy is free speech.”) In our own days, listen to what Kocharian and Levon Der Bedrossian are saying about each other.

*

If I repeat myself, it’s because I don’t have a phobia of repetition. If you do, I suggest you see a shrink. If you can’t afford one, stop reading me. Never say I speak of problems without suggesting any solutions. But if you reject my solution to your problem and continue to read me, I thank you. Have a nice day.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

What kind of people are we? What kind of leadership is

this? Instead of compassion, mutual contempt.

Instead of

reason blind instinct. Instead of common sense,

fanaticism.

 

They speak of the cross and nail us to it again as

they

speak.

 

ANTRANIK ZAROUKIAN

(1912-1989)

Poet, novelist, critic, editor.

 

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

 

All our religious, political, and cultural

institutions

share a single aim, the survival of the nation. If

the nation perishes, neither Echmiadzin nor Antelias,

not

even God in his heaven, can be of any help to us.

 

SIMON VRATSIAN

(1882-1969)

Statesman. Last Prime Minister of the Republic of

Armenia

(1918-1920).

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

 

We Armenians are products of the tribal mentality of

Turks

and Kurds, and this tribal mentality remains

stubbornly

rooted even among our leaders and elites.

 

NIGOL AGHBALIAN

(1873-1947)

Statesman, literary scholar, educator.

 

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

 

A familiar figure in our collective existence is the

prosperous and arrogant community leader who, by

obstructing the path of all those who wish to reform

and

improve our conditions, perpetuates a status quo whose

sole

aim is his own personal profit and aggrandizement.

 

LEVON *****LIAN

(1868-1943)

Athor, editor.

 

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

 

The Armenian Diaspora is losing its character. Our

language, our literature, and our traditions are

degenerating. Even our religious leaders have

abandoned

their calling and turned into cunning wheeler-dealers.

Our

publications thrive on meaningless controversies.

I see charlatanism and cheap chauvinism everywhere

but not

a single trace of self-sacrifice

and dedication to principles and ideals. What's

happening

to us? Where are we heading?

Quo vadis, O Armenian people?

 

SHAVARSH MISSAKIAN

(1884-1957)

Author, editor, critic.

 

 

 

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, December 23, 2007

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

HUMBUG

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

One of my gentle and anonymous readers, whose spelling leaves something to be desired, takes me to task for my ignorance of our history. “Armenian history,” he reminds me, “is an extremely complex topic,” and since I obviously do not know as much as he does, I should shut up about it. I am more than willing to concede that I don’t know all there is to know on the subject. But then who does, beside the Good Lord Himself, who so far has consistently refused to publish His version. As far as I know, no human being has ever dared to claim that after a lifetime of study he is now prepared to assert that he knows all there is to know about Armenian or any other history.

*

When after a lifetime of study Toynbee published his monumental ten-volume STUDY OF HISTORY, he was attacked and sometimes even verbally abused by an international array of historians who questioned the accuracy of his facts and the reliability of his conclusions. Dutch historians criticized him for his ignorance of Dutch history; Jewish historians tore him to shreds because he had dared to call Jews “fossils”; English historians dismissed him as a megalomaniacal mystic and charlatan; and Soviet historians treated him as a heretic because he did not share their faith in Marxism. It would be no exaggeration to say that both Spengler and Toynbee, the two greatest historians of the 20th century, have more critics than fans among their fellow historians.

*

Even when they deal in facts and nothing but facts, nationalist or ideologically committed historians lie because they select only those facts that support their particular thesis, and since the number of facts, documents, and eyewitness accounts is nearly infinite, they can do this without much difficulty.

*

Who takes nationalist historians seriously? Only themselves, their dupes, and the power structure within which they operate.

*

What matters about history is not how much we know or how many facts, documents, and eyewitness accounts we have at our disposal, but what have we learned from it. What have our nationalist or patriotic historians learned from our past? The very same thing that Turkish historians have learned: namely, to paint themselves all white and their adversaries all black.

*

History does not have to be the propaganda of the victor or the consolation of the loser. Our sympathies may be with the losers but that does not make their version of events more honest, objective, and impartial.

*

The aim of nationalist historians is not to learn but to teach. But teaching that is not preceded by learning is at best propaganda and at worst conditioning or brainwashing. Politics and history don’t mix. To allow politics or ideology to contaminate the study of history amounts to prostituting the past.

*

A final note on our revolutionaries: history judges us not by our intentions (remember the old adage: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”) but our actions; and actions have consequences. It follows, we should judge our revolutionaries not by their intentions but by the tragic consequences of their actions.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Monday, December 24, 2007

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

“I AM NOT A CROOK”

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

If bad things happen to good people, let us ask ourselves:

How good are we?

How good are our “brainless leaders”? (Avedik Issahakian).

How good are their dupes who believe we never had it so good because we are in good hands?

How good are the alienated who stay away from Armenian affairs? How good are the assimilated who have given up on us?

How good are our “best and brightest” who so far have failed to convince the world that our genocide is not a figment of our collective imagination?

How good are our intellectuals from Khorenatsi and Yeghishe (5th century) to Zarian and Massikian (in our own days) who have been unanimous in saying our leaders can’t even lead a dog to the nearest hydrant?

How good are our intellectuals and why should be believe them?

Well, what choice do we have? It’s either them or our politicians?

Are politicians capable of speaking the truth when they speak about themselves?

By the way, I don’t agree with Avedik Issahakian. Our leaders are not brainless. After all, they were brainy enough to have a plan B for themselves.

Believe in God, if you must, but believe no one else. Use your brain instead (if you will forgive the overstatement), and may the Good Lord have mercy on your soul (if you have one).

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

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

NOTES & COMMENTS

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

To those of my readers who disagree with me, sometimes violently, I say: I hear you. I feel your pain. Once upon a time I too was brainwashed to think, or rather to feel, as you do. To learn to think, to think for oneself, which also means to think against oneself, is a painfully slow process. It takes time. Be patient with yourself and tolerant with those who try to reason with you. Evolution is a law of nature. Never say therefore you will not change, for that way lies stagnation, degeneration, and death.

*

Instead of saying, the great powers deceived us, we should ask, why did we behave like dupes? Instead of saying the Turks massacred us, we should ask ourselves, why did we surrender our fate into their hands for 600 years?

*

A man who is convinced he knows everything he needs to know is a case of arrested underdevelopment.

*

The more you deceive yourself the more transparent you become to others.

*

If you know 100 things and claim to know 101, sooner or later someone is sure to expose you as an ignoramus.

#

##

 

[Ashot]

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

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

NOTES & COMMENTS

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

To those of my readers who disagree with me, sometimes violently, I say: I hear you. I feel your pain. Once upon a time I too was brainwashed to think, or rather to feel, as you do. To learn to think, to think for oneself, which also means to think against oneself, is a painfully slow process. It takes time. Be patient with yourself and tolerant with those who try to reason with you. Evolution is a law of nature. Never say therefore you will not change, for that way lies stagnation, degeneration, and death.

*

Instead of saying, the great powers deceived us, we should ask, why did we behave like dupes? Instead of saying the Turks massacred us, we should ask ourselves, why did we surrender our fate into their hands for 600 years?

*

A man who is convinced he knows everything he needs to know is a case of arrested underdevelopment.

*

The more you deceive yourself the more transparent you become to others.

*

If you know 100 things and claim to know 101, sooner or later someone is sure to expose you as an ignoramus.

#

##

Amen!

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

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

ANALYSIS

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

If you prefer fiction to fact, don’t read what follows because I plan to speak of reality, and reality in our case is seldom pretty.

*

If we are angry we have every right to be. Throughout our millennial history we have been ruled by foreign ruffians and domestic riffraff. My disagreement with my fellow Armenians begins when they take out this anger on fellow Armenians, and this without provocation -- unless you call a minor semantic or political disagreement a provocation – as if, throughout our long and happy existence we have known nothing but peace, harmony, and brotherhood among ourselves.

*

One does not have to be a combination of Sherlock Holmes and Freud to understand what I have said so far and what follows, namely that this vast store of accumulated resentment is not directed against our victimizers but against fellow victims, for the simple reason that our victimizers are either beyond our reach or, when within reach, they are invulnerable. This has been said by far better men than myself but it bears repeating: An Armenian’s worst enemy is not an odar but an Armenian, and this “other” Armenian is none other than himself.

*

On more than one occasion I have been told I have no right to speak of our problems unless I also propose a solution. This, needless to add, is a cheap rhetorical maneuver whose message is “Shut up!” To those of my readers who have not yet given up reading me so far, my suggested solution to the problem outlined above is a simple one: awareness. Because awareness of a problem is almost a solution.

*

If I were to describe an Armenian in a single sentence, I would say he is one who knows everything but understands nothing. As a result, his degree of awareness is that of a dinosaur. This may explain why Toynbee in his 10-volume STUDY OF HISTORY calls us “fossils,” like Jews. But whereas Jews were outraged and promptly rejected the label (see Maurice Samuel’s THE PROFESSOR AND THE FOSSIL), as far as i know, none of our professors rose to our defense. Is it because they secretly agreed with Toynbee? Either that or our professors are not in the habit of sharing their understand with us, probably because they know the torrents of verbal abuse that will be unleashed against them by our riffraff and their brainwashed dupes. Perhaps our real tragedy is not that we don’t understand but that we don’t want to understand, and that, I regret to say, is a problem that has no solution.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, December 27, 2007

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

POLITICS 101

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

A regime, any regime, even a regime of swine, will have its supporters.

*

In America today only 50% of the people vote. When asked why he doesn’t vote, a wise man once replied: “I don’t believe in encouraging them.”

*

One thing I have learned about my fellow Armenians and myself: We are human beings like the rest of mankind. Anyone who says we are better is either a brown-noser or a damn fool.

*

Propaganda teaches us to overestimate ourselves and to underestimate our adversaries, which promotes the view that our leaders are shepherds and their leaders butchers. But then, where would butchers be without shepherds?

*

If we are what we have become it’s because of liars whose favorite sport is the blame-game.

*

Self-assessed smart Armenians will never agree with me because agreeing with me would amount to admitting they are fools who have been taken in by liars.

*

After calling them “enemies of the people,” fascist leaders silence their critics. It is always the same story. After confusing fact with fiction they commit unspeakable crimes against humanity with the full support of their dupes. This may explain why there are people today (not all of them Turks) who believe Talaat was a great leader and his victims traitors who deserved their fate. This may also explain why some of the greatest butchers in the history of mankind, from Caligula and Nero to Stalin and Hitler, had their supporters.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Friday, December 28, 2007

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

THEORY & PRACTICE

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

The combined wisdom of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle has been wasted on the Greeks. Greek history is a disaster area. The divided city-states of Greece were at each other’s throats for centuries until they were conquered and mongrelized by, among others, the Turks.

What remains of Buddha’s wisdom in countries like India, China, Korea, and Japan? Mostly superstition and ritual (for more details, see Arthur Koestler’s THE LOTUS & THE ROBOT).

Individual wisdom does not always translate to political know-how for a very simple reason: the pursuit of wisdom and greed for power are mutually exclusive concepts and antagonistic movements from which greed for power will invariably emerge the winner.

*

Because I share my understanding, I have become an enemy. A fool will reserve his agreement for men who tell him what he already knows and understands. That’s because, as a fool, he doesn’t understand that knowledge is an endless search.

*

If straight talk offends you, who is to blame but your ego?

*

Speaking of theory and practice, I read the following headline in our paper this morning: “Hindu Hardliners burn Christian churches, Christians retaliate and burn Hindu homes.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, December 29, 2007

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

FEEDBACK

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

“If genocide means the systematic extermination of a nation, how come you are still around?” a Turkish reader wants to know.

No matter how systematic and efficiently carried out, a genocide is seldom successful. Even the Germans, the most efficient and systematic of nations, failed to exterminate Jews and Gypsies.

*

Another Turkish reader writes: “The Turks are too sloppy a people to have organized and carried out a policy of systematic extermination.”

It is equally true that Armenians are too divided to agree on anything. And yet, not only they agree on the reality of the genocide, they have also been successful in convincing an important fraction of the world to agree with them.

*

My quarrel with our genocide pundits is not that they misrepresent reality but that they live in the past. “Let the dead bury their dead,” we are told, especially at a time when the living are dying.

*

To speak of Armenians only in the context of massacres: is that not a misrepresentation? Or, as Gramsci points out somewhere: Why would anyone care about a people known only as victims?

*

It is easy to make enemies, much more difficult to make friends. Our challenge is to convert our enemies to friends, and not to convert our brothers to enemies.

*

Civility and patriotism are not mutually exclusive concepts. Rules of civilized conduct apply even to superpatriots. So do rules of logic, common sense and decency. To say otherwise is to equate patriotism with barbarism.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, December 30, 2007

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

DAVID ANHAGHT

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

As children we were taught that Armenian philosopher David Anhaght (6th century AD) was called “Invincible” because he never lost an argument. What were the central ideas of his philosophy? Did he support freedom or obedience to authority? Who gave him that sobriquet – his students or disciples? Why is it that he is not mentioned in any text on the history of philosophy – not even in a footnote? What was his favorite method of winning arguments -- quoting Plato, Aristotle, and the Scriptures? Raising his voice? Attacking his adversary’s ideas or person? Finally and most important of all: what’s the merit in winning an argument in defense of false ideas?

*

An organized religion becomes idolatry when obedience to God evolves to subservience to men who speak in His name?

*

If a messiah were to appear among us today, I suspect one of his most important messages to the world will be: “Verily I say unto you: When a man speaks in the name of God, it is the words of the Devil that issue from his mouth.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Monday, December 31, 2007

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

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

ON TURKISH DENIALISM

& RELATED ATROCITIES

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

Q: How should we treat Turkish denialism?

A: With understanding. We should not speak of them as if they were bloodthirsty savages.

Q: But isn’t genocide a quintessentially bloodthirsty crime against humanity?

A: Yes, of course. But we should ascribe that crime where it belongs, namely, to their share of ruffians and cutthroats…and I hope you will agree with me when I say that all nations, including the most civilized, have their share of rapists and serial killers.

Q: Isn’t it equally true that not all nations deny their crimes against humanity?

A: Let us not confuse nations with regimes, and regimes with the people. We should not ascribe Turkish denialism to the nation or the people but to the foreign policy and educational system of the present regime.

If many Turks reject the charge of genocide, it may be because most Turks, like most people, are dupes whose worldview is shaped by propaganda as opposed to rules imposed on us by objective judgment.

Q: If I understand you correctly, you are saying, Turks may plead not guilty by reason of ignorance?

A: What I am also saying, collective ignorance or patriotic bias is not an exclusively Turkish aberration.

Q: You also seem to be saying all nations and all people are more or less alike. In which case I must ask, how do we explain the fact that Turks are guilty of genocide but Armenians are not?

A: We explain it by saying, that is not a result of moral superiority but of military inferiority.

Q: On a related topic: you speak of Ottomanized Armenians. Could you define Ottomanization for us?

A: I would define it as the assimilation of Ottoman cultural values, such as the adoption of extreme views, even when these views are against our own interests. Case in point: our refusal to engage in dialogue with those who disagree with us, or to interpret disagreement as an expression of hostility or even hatred. Another case in point would be our painting Turks all black and Armenians all white thus undermining our own credibility in the eyes of the world. No one in his right mind believes Armenians are or could ever be all white for the simple reason that even saints are not all white.

Q: Final question: How do we go about de-Ottomanizing ourselves?

A: That’s almost like asking how do we de-programme a brainwashed person? There are no easy answers or methods. Education would be one way. Etiquette would be another. Suppose you believe in something with every single fiber in your body but you are not sure if your interlocutor shares your belief. If you make an assertion based on your belief and introduce or end it with the qualifier, I may be wrong about this, you may consider yourself de-Ottomanized as well as de-Stalinized.

Q: Why is it that a great many Armenians disagree with you?

A: If they do, it may be because I am wrong.

Q: Practicing what you preach?

A: That’s the very least I can do.

Q: I wish you a happy and creative New Year.

A: I too wish you all the best. May all your dreams come true!

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

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

IT IS WRITTEN

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

Fools who think they are smart: they are the curse of mankind. I am not surprised therefore when on rereading THE PROVERBS in the Old Testament, I notice that almost every other proverb deals with fools. God loves the poor, it is said, that is why He has created so many of them. If we assume that to be true (which I doubt), why then did He create so many fools when He obviously has nothing but contempt for them (if we assume the Scriptures to be His word)?

*

“Like a dog that returns to his vomit, is a fool that repeats his folly,” reads one proverb.

*

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself,” reads another.

*

More random samples follow:

“A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the back of fools.”

*

“A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man quietly holds it back.”

*

“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

*

“A fool’s lips bring strife, and his mouth invites a flogging.”

*

“A fool’s mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to himself.”

*

Is a fool capable of admitting to being one?

What could be more foolish than trying to reason with fools?

While reading THE PROVERBS, has a fool ever thought, “It is about me that the Good Lord speaks.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

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

WHY WE DISAGREE

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

Most Christians are Christians because they were born in a Christian country. The same applies to Muslims and Hindus. Environment plays a key role in determining our belief system. Different environments, educational systems, parents, experiences, role models, and encounters mean different worldviews. Most Tashnaks had Tashnak parents, likewise most Ramgavars and Communists. My father lost everything he owned in two separate occasions, World War I in Turkey and World War II in Greece. He was too busy trying to survive in an alien environment to have any time for politics. This may be only a partial explanation as to why I am suspicious of all political parties and ideologies. This may also be why I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, especially if agreement means recycling the same propaganda line. I am not in the business of recycling propaganda. If anything the opposite applies: I have made it my business to expose the lies of propaganda, the very same lies that are at the root of our internecine conflicts and divisions, not to say dogmatism and authoritarianism. Disagreement is both inevitable and natural; what is not natural is the implication that the neighborhood in which you were born and raised is better than someone else’s, which is almost as absurd as the suggestion that those who brainwashed you were better men than their counterparts on the other side of a mountain, river, sea or some other imaginary line. In my view brainwashing is a criminal offense and no good man would ever engage in such a nefarious activity. Since truth is destined to remain beyond our reach, let us agree that more often than not disagreements are clashes not between a truth and a lie but two half-truths and sometimes even two big lies.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, January 03, 2008

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

ASKING QUESTIONS, GETTING ANSWERS

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

If you want to know the truth about the Catholic Church, don’t ask the Pope. This inevitably raises the question: If you can’t trust the Pope, whom can you trust? The answer is and must be: No one with power.

*

If you want to know more about Armenians, don’t ask an Armenian, who may know much more about Armenians than most odars. That’s because quantity of knowledge does not always translate to quality, or objectivity, reliability, and honesty. If you want to know the truth about Turks, would you ask a Turk?

*

If you want to know more about nationalism, the worst mistake you can make is to ask a nationalist. Ask instead the victims of nationalism, and if you are an Armenian, you don’t have to look for one. Ask yourself. Armenians have been the first major victims of nationalism in the 20th century.

*

John Stuart Mill: “No one but a fool, and only a fool of a peculiar description, feels offended by the acknowledgement that there are others whose opinion is entitled to a greater amount of consideration than his.” Translated into dollars and cents, this means: All men are created equal, but their opinions are not.

*

Speaking of the Pope and Christianity, I read the following question in a recent issue of THE SPECTATOR: “Where would Christianity be if Jesus had got 8 to 15 years with time off for good behavior?”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Friday, January 04, 2008

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

AN ABYSMALLY NAÏVE MISCONCEPTION

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

In life we take many things for granted, beginning with life itself, and after life, the abysmally naïve misconception that our “betters” are better and what they say is more or less true because they are more or less honest men. In this context, however, when we speak in terms of more or less, the emphasis should be on less. To cover up the less and stress the more, leaders, all leaders, political as well as religious, like to speak in the name of God and Country, two entities that cannot speak for themselves.

*

Speaking of honesty and politicians: it is said that there is nothing as dark as the prospects of an honest politician, in the same way that nothing invites violence as surely as talk of non-violence.

*

Power, propaganda, deception, and violence or the threat of violence, are inseparable. As for speaking in the name of God: Who would dare to suggest that God is capable of contradicting Himself? And yet, all organized religions contradict one another.

*

Greed for power is a malady and an addiction much more dangerous than all addictions combined because it affects not a single person but the nation and sometimes even the world. Which is why one is fully justified in saying that our “betters” far from being better may well be our worst. Which is also why the only good thing about political elections is that the losers outnumber the winners.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, January 05, 2008

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

ON FAITH & RELATED ATROCITIES

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

The hardest thing in life is to separate the real from what is not. To a believer, faith is more real than reality. By introducing meaning into our lives, faith makes us blind to reality. That’s one way to explain the ruthless and sadistic persecution of heretics, religious wars (one of which lasted a hundred years) and suicidal terrorists who think they will be rewarded with 72 virgins.

*

The best things in life are not always free. And sometimes we pay most for the things we get for nothing.

*

A dogmatist is one who thinks only God can tell him he is wrong, and he says this in the full knowledge that he is not important enough for the Good Lord to descend from the clouds in order to contradict him.

*

A fool knows that the best way to win an argument is to be so irrational, offensive, and vulgar that no one in his right mind would consider getting involved in his verbal filth. Never underestimate the cunning of fools. Since they have been fools all their lives they have developed all kinds of strategies of survival.

*

It is written: “Let a men meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs, rather than a fool in his folly.”

*

“An Armenian’s tongue can be sharper than a Turk’s yataghan,” Zarian tells us. In what way are we different from them if we do with our tongues what they did with their yataghans?

*

To recognize the fool that resides in all of us is the beginning of all wisdom.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, January 06, 2008

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION

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

Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, Solzhenitsyn -- there are several important and revealing parallels in their lives:

They were right, their accusers wrong.

Their accusers outnumbered their defenders.

They were honest men and their accusers charlatans or ignoramuses. They wanted to share their understanding of truth or reality, their accusers acted in defense of authority, dogma, and power.

All they asked for is tolerance. What they got was is the threat of torture, exile, and death.

Next time you disagree with someone, ask yourself:

Am I on the side of power or truth?

Do I speak as I do because I represent the majority?

Do I consider dissent a capital offense?

Am I for tolerance or intolerance?

Am I on the side of executioners?

Deep inside somewhere, do I harbor a killer?

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Monday, January 07, 2008

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

CONTRIBUTION

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

Perhaps my sole contribution to society has been my success in annoying some of our charlatans -- judging by the frequency and intensity of their insults.

*

MY EPITAPH

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

“Here lies a man who may have been the cause of a few moments’ insomnia to a handful of loudmouth hooligans parading as superpatriots.”

*

DISAGREEMENT

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

Does disagreement justify insulting and alienating a fellow Armenian? If we use our past as an index: yes. And therein lies the source of all our misfortunes. It follows, the only way to change the line of our destiny is to replace that yes with a resounding NO! A disagreement, be it religious or ideological, should not be seen as an end but only the beginning of a dialogue leading to compromise and consensus (which does not mean agreement but a willingness to advance in the same direction). He who says disagreement and consensus are mutually exclusive concepts becomes an agent of the enemy and his divide-and-rule tactics.

To those who assert everything I write is an insult to the nation, I say, why should reason and common sense be an insult to anyone but a deranged mind? And to those who say I should ignore the words of hooligans, I suggest our hooligans echo the sentiments and thoughts of our dividers, that is to say, the propaganda of our bosses and bishops – I don’t include benefactors because their only source of authority is the bottom line.

*

Somewhere Paul Valéry speaks of man’s primitive belief in explanations. Any explanation, no matter how absurd, is better than no explanation, he tells us. Hence the undying popularity of astrology, and after astrology, the universal appeal of propaganda.

*

AN EXPLANATION

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

When an old Indian once predicted a bad winter, he was asked how he knew. His reply: “White man make big wood pile.”

#

 

[garmag]

Having read you since the seventies all that I could, without sounding as a deciple, wish you all the powers and patience that only you can muster!

Once in a while a pat on the back by an appreciator of your efforts, should give one a little zest to carry on without feeling a "tsayn parparo hanabadi".

Thank you from this old foggy, that was becoming more and more sceptical about the humanoids but for pens like yours!

[ara baliozian]

dear friend:

your comments are indeed very welcome. thanks! / ara

 

Edited January 8, 2008 by ara baliozian