as i see it - Pt. IV

[ara baliozian]

Նախկին հիմարի դիտարկումները

 

Արա Բալիոզյան

 

 

 

Եթե իսկապես վատ գրող եմ ինչպես ասում են ընթերցողներիս մի մասը, ինչու՞ են նեղություն քաշում ու կարդում գրածս, այն դեպքում երբ այդքան լավ գրող կա, նրաց մեջ հայրենասեր գիտնականներ, պատմաբաններ, հետազոտողներ, պոետներ...

 

Ինչու՞ են հավատացյալները պատժում անհավատներին։ Գուցե որովհետև հավատացյալները կարծում են որ հավատում են, երբ իրականում չեն հավատում, և անհավատներին լռեցնելով հույս ունեն, որ կլռեցնեն սեփական կասկածները։

 

Սովետական տարիներին ապակենտրոն մտածողներին խոշտանգում էին, աքսորում ու գնդակահարում: Ավելացրե՞ց արդյոք դա Սովետական Միության կյանքը գեթ մեկ ակնթարթով։

 

Մեծ ազգերը ծնում են մեծ գրողներ։ Շեքսպիրը գրում էր թագավորների ու թագուհիների համար՝ ոչ ուղեղլվացած հիմարների ու նրանց տիկնանց։

 

Հայը երբեք չէր կարող ասել «չես կարող հիմարեցնել բոլոր մարդկանց, բոլոր ժամանակներում», որովհետև հայերը բարեհաջող կերպով հիմարեցվել են ավելի քան 1500 տարի։

 

Ի՞նչ պատահեց մեր Բագրատունիներին, որոնք մերժեցին սեփական ցեղն ու պնդեցին, որ Եբրաի ծագում ունեն ու սերում են Դավիթ Արքայի տոհմից։ Ի՞նչ պատահեց մեր Մամիկոնյաններին (չինական ծագումով), որոնք պնդում էին որ Ավարայրի ճակատամարտ են մղել, որն ըստ որոշ պատմաբանների, ոչ միայն օտարազգի, երբևէ տեղի չի ունեցել։

 

Ազգերը կարիք ունեն միթոսների, առասպելների։ Միայն պարտվողները կարիք ունեն ստերի։

 

Որքան ավելի ուղեղլվացած են, այնքան ավելի ցածր է IQ-ն, բարձր է անհանդուրժողականությունը, խորն է ամբարտավանությունը, և անսահման ֆանատիզմը:

 

Ես կարող եմ ճանաչել ուղեղլվացած հիմարին։ Ինքս այդպիսին էի կյանքիս մեծ մասը։

 

Հարրի Թրումանը Ռիչարդ Նիքսոնի մասին. Չեմ կարծում որ այդ շուն շան որդին հասկանում է ճշմարտությունն ասելու և սուտ խոսելու տարբերությունը։

 

 

[ara baliozian]

none of us is qualified to speak of all turks and armenians, only the small fraction that we have dealt with.

after 60 years in america most armenian-americans are more american and less armenian.

now, project what must have happened in 600 years in the ottoman empire.

 

as for armenian and turkish cultures: what they share in common is a tendency to suppress all original expressions of cultural figures. both our cultures are essentially anticultural and thoroughly philistine.

[Twilight Bark]

I beg to differ Dear 'Twilight Bark".

Indeed, when you scratch specifically a Giligian Armenian, the similarities to turkick behaviour and mannerism, views of the world and the ways of it, are the two sides of the same coin.

I should know as I am a Sissetsi and have witnessed this in my own family as well as friends and families all over the world!

I dare you to name 10 dissimilarities between Armenians and Turks...excluding religions and ethnic origins...

 

Look at President Gul, he could pass as a Sasoontsi for heavens sake! Ok, if you wish, make him Zeituntsi

 

In fact what is so wrong being called turkish Armenian?, we were that for over 600 years...

I do not mean we should be lovy-dovy with Turks and let what happened to us in 1915 be forgatten! There should be a recognition as well as compensation to Armenians as reparation, FOR THE UNLAWFUL CRIME OF DEPORTATION AND MASSACRES COMMITTED and possible reconciliation IN DUE COURSE!

No one benefits from the cancerous hate malady that both Armenians and Turks were induced to carry as a burden. It begs to ask the question ...WHO BENEFITS FROM THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IF THE SELF PERPETRATING VICIOUS CIRCLE IS CONSTANTLY FUELLED BY SINISTER AND HIDDEN CABALS SUCH AS ENERGEKON?

 

Food for thought before you jump on my neck!

 

Please forgive me for countering your statement that makes sense for a majority of the people on both sides of the fence...

Unfortunately they were not innoculated against the diobolical hate towards their neighbours.

This is still an ongoing process all over the globe...Vay e mez, martgoutyan, yete isqaqan mart enk!

Sirogh Garo

 

You object to my critique, and yet proceed to repeat the "similarities" that I called superficial (and therefore ultimately incosequential and thus in support of my stated view) in order to "demonstrate" the falsity of what I said, without demonstrating that the said similarities were indeed not superficial, but instead profound and fundamental. I am usually hesitant to continue when the plumbings of logic and reason break during a discussion -- and so early in this case. However, I will try to keep with this for a round or two.

 

Looking broadly alike physically is incosequential. Turks are made up of dozens of assimilated nationalities, cowed into believing or pretending to believe their national origination myth. Some look like Armenians, most do not. I don't care much about it at the intellectual level. At an emotional level, when I see an Armenian face on a Turk, it doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings of oneness and brotherhood. It reminds me of the mechanism through which that face ended up on a Turk.

 

As for mannerisms. The vulgarities and other mannerisms caried over from the village or small-town life in Asia Minor still survive in the now "urban" Armenian remnants. Just like the cuisine. But these are all superficial, even at the individual level. To give an example, just because one uses the same pen, same kind of paper, have a similar handwriting, and by golly even makes up similar sounding sentences doesn't make one fundamentally "similar" to Shakespeare. It's in the nature of what's written with the "similar" hardware that decides whether a given writer is indeed similar and comparable to another. And this is still only about comparing individuals.

 

Then something counterintuitive and interesting happens when you put individuals into a collective. The collective behavior you get from lumping Armenians together is drastically different from what you get when you lump Turks together into a collective. I know from simulations of physical systems that you can get wildly different collective behaviors from the same particles if you arrange them differently, thus changing the way they interact with one another. Furthermore, collective behavior, although ultimately coming from the superposition of individual responses, is wildly different from the individual behavior. It all depends on how individuals are "arranged", which influences how they interact with one another, how strongly they are coupled, and whether or not their interactions are confused by the force of a central field with a different symmetry. I know this sounds like gibberish, but I can't do better than that for now. The take-home message is that superficial similarities at individual level have no bearing in determining similarity in the fundamental natures of two cultures, which by definition are collective traits.

[Twilight Bark]

none of us is qualified to speak of all turks and armenians, only the small fraction that we have dealt with.

Fake humility is unnecessary. You certainly demonstrate a self-confidence, if not cockiness, to speak on behalf of whomever you feel like, and that's fine. Who cares if you or I are qualified. Who gets to grant the "qualification"? The Central Committe on Cultural Spokespersons?

 

I declare that I am plenty qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject, because I have had the experience of being immersed in both cultures, and not simply as an unthinking drone at that.

 

 

after 60 years in america most armenian-americans are more american and less armenian.

now, project what must have happened in 600 years in the ottoman empire.

That is a breathtakingly naive and thoughtless comparison. Armenians in America are assimilating because the country is specifically designed to do just that. Its methods have evolved from ridicule to mild coercion with a smile, taking a bit longer these days. Ottoman Empire depended on a division of labor between different "millets", and actually exaggerated diferences in order to clarify the place and role of each group. When that caused problems at a particular place or time, their solution was extermination or forced assimilation of a particular area or group of individuals into the the muslim-turk background identity of the empire. What remained of the subservient group still carried on distinctly and with its exaggerated traits imposed by the evolutionary pressures put by the structure of the empire.

 

as for armenian and turkish cultures: what they share in common is a tendency to suppress all original expressions of cultural figures. both our cultures are essentially anticultural and thoroughly philistine.

What the two cultures specifically suppress as well as how they go about it are quite different. I am not making a comparative value judgement here. And I am not defending for a second the banality and sterility of current Armenian culture. I am simply stating that the two "suppressions" are demonstrably different, as proven by the different results they have produced.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Twilight Bark

[garmag]

You object to my critique, and yet proceed to repeat the "similarities" that I called superficial (and therefore ultimately incosequential and thus in support of my stated view) in order to "demonstrate" the falsity of what I said, without demonstrating that the said similarities were indeed not superficial, but instead profound and fundamental. I am usually hesitant to continue when the plumbings of logic and reason break during a discussion -- and so early in this case. However, I will try to keep with this for a round or two.

 

... I know this sounds like gibberish, but I can't do better than that for now. The take-home message is that superficial similarities at individual level have no bearing in determining similarity in the fundamental natures of two cultures, which by definition are collective traits.

 

 

Daer "twilight Bark" I like your avatar...

 

Thank you for bearing with me for a round or two, I incline my head to your intellect even if as you stated above "It sounds like gibberish"but has all the ingredients for confusion!

Forgive me for not having attained your level of logical dynamics... I try my best...

It reminds me my uncle saying" if it craws like a craw and is jet black it must be a craw..."

 

In my humble opinion similarities, even if superficial, are the first most important ingredients for forming a new group of distinct traits in ethnics...OVER TIME OF COURSE.

HOW ELSE DOES ONE EXPLAIN ASSIMILATION AND TOTAL ABSOBTION OF DIFFERENT ETHNICITIES INTO EACH OTHER!

 

A polish, a Rumanian and Dutch big Armenian communities, not forgetting Armenians of India in the 16th-17th centuries, having through similarities totally lost their original entities through time...Today alas, we have none in these coutries listed above that profess to be Armenians.

 

Would it not logically follow that after 600 years of subjugation of the Armenians by Ottomans, a lot of Armenians might have turkified themselves unconsiously?

Sirov

Garo

 

[Twilight Bark]

Daer "twilight Bark" I like your avatar...

Uh huh ... [strike 1]

 

Thank you for bearing with me for a round or two, I incline my head to your intellect even if as you stated above "It sounds like gibberish"but has all the ingredients for confusion!

Forgive me for not having attained your level of logical dynamics... I try my best...

It reminds me my uncle saying" if it craws like a craw and is jet black it must be a craw..."

Hmm. [strike 2]

 

In my humble opinion similarities, even if superficial, are the first most important ingredients for forming a new group of distinct traits in ethnics...OVER TIME OF COURSE.

HOW ELSE DOES ONE EXPLAIN ASSIMILATION AND TOTAL ABSOBTION OF DIFFERENT ETHNICITIES INTO EACH OTHER!

 

A polish, a Rumanian and Dutch big Armenian communities, not forgetting Armenians of India in the 16th-17th centuries, having through similarities totally lost their original entities through time...Today alas, we have none in these coutries listed above that profess to be Armenians.

 

Would it not logically follow that after 600 years of subjugation of the Armenians by Ottomans, a lot of Armenians might have turkified themselves unconsiously?

I already explained why the superficial similarities remained superficial under the Turks. Please read again.

 

Even today, Armenians living under Turkish rule follow two main paths (with a few exceptions):

1. Stay cowed and subservient. The continuation of Ottoman conditions.

2. Turn off higher faculties of one's brain, join the party and go down the path of eventual assimilation. When the process is complete, they will indeed be ordinary Turks. It is much more feasible now than it used to be.

 

This is not inconsistent with what I said at all. What you observe as "Armenian" would still be mostly the relatively unassimilated ones (and still following more or less the Ottoman model), until no one is left. The key difference from other cases of assimilation is the intense hostility of the "host" culture. It changes the game.

 

[ara baliozian]

Fake humility is unnecessary. You certainly demonstrate a self-confidence, if not cockiness, to speak on behalf of whomever you feel like, and that's fine. Who cares if you or I are qualified. Who gets to grant the "qualification"? The Central Committe on Cultural Spokespersons?

 

I declare that I am plenty qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject, because I have had the experience of being immersed in both cultures, and not simply as an unthinking drone at that.

 

 

 

That is a breathtakingly naive and thoughtless comparison. Armenians in America are assimilating because the country is specifically designed to do just that. Its methods have evolved from ridicule to mild coercion with a smile, taking a bit longer these days. Ottoman Empire depended on a division of labor between different "millets", and actually exaggerated diferences in order to clarify the place and role of each group. When that caused problems at a particular place or time, their solution was extermination or forced assimilation of a particular area or group of individuals into the the muslim-turk background identity of the empire. What remained of the subservient group still carried on distinctly and with its exaggerated traits imposed by the evolutionary pressures put by the structure of the empire.

 

 

What the two cultures specifically suppress as well as how they go about it are quite different. I am not making a comparative value judgement here. And I am not defending for a second the banality and sterility of current Armenian culture. I am simply stating that the two "suppressions" are demonstrably different, as proven by the different results they have produced.

 

I have met some very civilized and nice turks.

and when it comes coercion, i suggest the turks were not far behind the yanks.

and the most important feature in suppression is suppression itself.

they exiled Pamuk, we silenced Zarian...

among many others.

you make too many subtle distinctions, my friend.

i suggest you come down to earth...instead of getting lost in a forest of metaphysical subtleties.

 

[ara baliozian]

Daer "twilight Bark" I like your avatar...

 

Thank you for bearing with me for a round or two, I incline my head to your intellect even if as you stated above "It sounds like gibberish"but has all the ingredients for confusion!

Forgive me for not having attained your level of logical dynamics... I try my best...

It reminds me my uncle saying" if it craws like a craw and is jet black it must be a craw..."

 

In my humble opinion similarities, even if superficial, are the first most important ingredients for forming a new group of distinct traits in ethnics...OVER TIME OF COURSE.

HOW ELSE DOES ONE EXPLAIN ASSIMILATION AND TOTAL ABSOBTION OF DIFFERENT ETHNICITIES INTO EACH OTHER!

 

A polish, a Rumanian and Dutch big Armenian communities, not forgetting Armenians of India in the 16th-17th centuries, having through similarities totally lost their original entities through time...Today alas, we have none in these coutries listed above that profess to be Armenians.

 

Would it not logically follow that after 600 years of subjugation of the Armenians by Ottomans, a lot of Armenians might have turkified themselves unconsiously?

Sirov

Garo

 

the best illustration of what you say above is Odian's fiction...also Baronian's.

his characters have little or nothing that may be said to be remotely armenian except the lingo. / ara

 

 

[ara baliozian]

Uh huh ... [strike 1]

 

Hmm. [strike 2]

 

I already explained why the superficial similarities remained superficial under the Turks. Please read again.

 

Even today, Armenians living under Turkish rule follow two main paths (with a few exceptions):

1. Stay cowed and subservient. The continuation of Ottoman conditions.

2. Turn off higher faculties of one's brain, join the party and go down the path of eventual assimilation. When the process is complete, they will indeed be ordinary Turks. It is much more feasible now than it used to be.

 

This is not inconsistent with what I said at all. What you observe as "Armenian" would still be mostly the relatively unassimilated ones (and still following more or less the Ottoman model), until no one is left. The key difference from other cases of assimilation is the intense hostility of the "host" culture. It changes the game.

 

i have met several armenians from istanbul and they are far from hostile towards the turks. / ara

[Twilight Bark]

I have met some very civilized and nice turks.

So have I. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

 

and when it comes coercion, i suggest the turks were not far behind the yanks.

I explained the important distinction, and you come back with a simple minded monday morning team rank table.

 

and the most important feature in suppression is suppression itself.

Here is news for you. All cultures use suppression. That is why they are distinct enough to be called a culture, and by a particular name. They rarely get to be distinct because they have been isolated from the rest of humanity by physical barriers. The barriers keeping them coherent as an entity are man-made and function through suppression of what's regarded as deviant. Like it, hate it, that's how it is.

 

you make too many subtle distinctions, my friend.

i suggest you come down to earth...instead of getting lost in a forest of metaphysical subtleties.

On the contrary, my thinking is firmly rooted in the ground, and is based on a thoughtful evaluation of observation. Sophistication and competence are confused with sophistry only by the peasants and the simpleminded. But I don't expect you to re-evaluate your self-image or anything else at your age. However, be warned that if you take a sledgehammer to the job that needs a scalpel, neither the patient nor the physician will benefit from the outcome.

[Twilight Bark]

i have met several armenians from istanbul and they are far from hostile towards the turks. / ara

Indeed. If you actually read what I wrote a bit more carefully, you would realize that I said "hostility of the host culture", and NOT "hostility towards the host culture".

 

 

[ara baliozian]

on suppression:

it is quintessentially anti-cultural.

it does not promote culture; it kills it.

consider what happened to Greece after the death of Socrates.

consider what happened to the USSR after it silenced its critics.

suppression promotes only barbarism.

consider what's happening with us after we exterminated and silenced our best and brightest. / ara

 

[Twilight Bark]

on suppression:

it is quintessentially anti-cultural.

it does not promote culture; it kills it.

consider what happened to Greece after the death of Socrates.

consider what happened to the USSR after it silenced its critics.

suppression promotes only barbarism.

consider what's happening with us after we exterminated and silenced our best and brightest. / ara

We are using the word "culture" in different ways. You are using it to mean "high culture", or "original contributions to culture". I am using it in the historical, anthropological sense of representing the way of life, way of thinking, way of expressing, and the world view that come with those. In that sense, suppression simply acts as a tool to shape the course of the culture. Mind you I am not saying I like it, or that I am defending it. I am just explaining as eyes see it.

 

Oh, about what happened to Greece. It was the bumbling imperial idiots also known as "Romans" that killed the Greek culture. There is a book titled "The forgotten revolution", that explains how Roman conquest obliterated the scientific revolution starting in the Hellenistic world in the east. They didn't even understand scientific thinking. They thought it was useless gibberish.

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, October 2, 2008

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

ON SURVIVAL

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

If we are survivors, what would you call cockroaches – an endangered species? Am I comparing Armenians to cockroaches. No, of course not! I have never heard a cockroach brag.

*

If our destiny was to be extinct, we are a success story. But if our destiny was to be an empire, we are a miserable failure.

I remember once when I said as much, one of my most combative, sriga detractors said: “We are a civilized, peace-loving people; we are not bloodthirsty imperialists.”

If that's what we are, why is it that we are taught to brag about our empire under Dikran the Great, and our political and military leaders in the Byzantine Empire?

As far as I know, there has never been a nation that voluntarily gave up its imperial ambitions and chose to be subservient to ruthless foreign despots. Neither have I heard of a pack of wolves that converted to vegetarianism and adopted the lifestyle of sheep.

*

One reason I don't always reply to my garbage-mouth critics is that in their efforts to silence me they make themselves so repulsive that arguing with them would be like killing someone who is committing suicide.

*

In a previous entry I mentioned an Armenian forum in which Turks outnumber Armenians. Some damn fool on this forum has been deleting my things probably because he recognizes himself in what I write. If this anonymous and cowardly fool is an Armenian, I say, shame on him. If he is a Turk, he must be a direct descendant of Sultan Mahomet “whose Turkish troops took Constantinople in 1453 and paused in the butchery long enough to burn most of the library books and toss 120,000 manuscripts into the sea. (See Fernando Baez, A UNIVERSAL HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF BOOKS.)

#

Friday, October 3, 2008

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

TO MY READERS

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

If we ever experience a Renaissance, I would like it to be a renaissance not of Michelangelos and da Vincis but of common sense and decency.

*

A suggestion to readers who tell me I hate my fellow Armenians. Next time you find yourself in front of a mirror, take a good look and ask yourself, “Am I lovable?”

*

They tell me I should be more friendly to my readers, including those who disagree with me. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar? So does crap. I have been a fool too long and I have dealt with fools too many times to have any illusions about them, and one thing I have learned is that it never pays to encourage them into thinking they belong to the human race.

*

In my business it is very important to have “an unerring eye for humbug” (Kant), or a gadget known as “a reliable shit-detector” (Hemingway).

*

If you repeat what someone has told you, you are not expressing your views but his, in which case to say nothing would be preferable.

*

Science tells us men and beasts are different in many respects. What it doesn't tell us is that in one very important respect they are alike: they are both ruled by the law of the jungle.

*

And speaking of cannibalism, listen to Henry Fielding's definition of love: “The desire of satisfying a voracious appetite with a certain quantity of delicate white human flesh.”

#

Saturday, October 4, 2008

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

ON LOYALTY, AMONG OTHER THINGS

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

Everything I write is an answer to a specific question. I must have answered over a thousand questions by now. The only questions I refuse to answer are the ones whose implication is “You are either with me or against me.” These are not questions as demands for a loyalty oath. Loyalty to men is a fascist concept and as such loathsome. There is no merit in being loyal to swine. Loyalty to principles and truth, yes, by all means: I am all for it.

*

A mediocre book about mediocre people by a mediocre writer would be a best-seller because everyone would like to know what others are really like.

*

Even as we brag we expose our failings, and we do this with almost primitive unawareness. Because our best and brightest did not survive, our worthless and worst brag about their genius for survival.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

We are using the word "culture" in different ways. You are using it to mean "high culture", or "original contributions to culture". I am using it in the historical, anthropological sense of representing the way of life, way of thinking, way of expressing, and the world view that come with those. In that sense, suppression simply acts as a tool to shape the course of the culture. Mind you I am not saying I like it, or that I am defending it. I am just explaining as eyes see it.

 

Oh, about what happened to Greece. It was the bumbling imperial idiots also known as "Romans" that killed the Greek culture. There is a book titled "The forgotten revolution", that explains how Roman conquest obliterated the scientific revolution starting in the Hellenistic world in the east. They didn't even understand scientific thinking. They thought it was useless gibberish.

 

my context throughout has been suppression of free speech and dissent.

as for the romans and greeks: the greeks had an empire long before the romans.

but as a result of internecine conflicts (sounds familiar?) and suppression of free speech, they declined...and like armenians, they were even conquered by the turks.

 

if i remember correctly: you and i have a long history of disagreement. if i no longer read you attentively it may because you are a typical armenian whose spirit of contradiction is far more highly developed than his tolerancen or understanding. / ara

[Twilight Bark]

my context throughout has been suppression of free speech and dissent.

as for the romans and greeks: the greeks had an empire long before the romans.

but as a result of internecine conflicts (sounds familiar?) and suppression of free speech, they declined...and like armenians, they were even conquered by the turks.

While I dislike imperial tendencies without exception, that was not the thrust of my point. The point was that Greeks got conquered by an unsophisticated, militaristic force that couldn't even grasp what scientific thinking was about. And I have no particular sympathy towards the Greeks, especially in light of their treatment of Armenians when they had the power. Anyway, the point was that the dowfall of the Greek culture was not due to internal conflict; they always had that. And the important thing wasn't the dowfall of Greek culture per se. It was the extermination of "enlightenment" by an ignorant and simple-minded militarism. It took another 1500 years to recover from it.

 

if i remember correctly: you and i have a long history of disagreement.

Who cares. Pay attention to the subject at hand.

 

if i no longer read you attentively it may because you are a typical armenian

Hah. That made me laugh. Really, I am smiling as I write this. It just shows how fundamentally clueless and incapable of observation you are sometimes.

 

whose spirit of contradiction is far more highly developed than his tolerancen or understanding. / ara

Oh yes, I like contradicting, but only when I see that there is something that needs to be corrected, and nobody else is doing it. That's what critiques do. It might feel familiar to you.

 

About tolerance. The only area where I admit I am short of tolerance is arrogant stupidity. I tolerate stupidity, if the person is nice. I tolerate arrogance if the person has some justification in being arrogant. However, the combination of the two angers me.

 

About understanding. I don't know what you base that insult on. You have never properly listened to what I had to say as soon as you detected that I had some serious disagreements with some of what you write. And you don't seem to have read anything else that I have written here in this forum or another forum from which you stormed out (where I defended your right to express yourself by the way, and I wasn't even in the discussion at all). How on earth do you know what I understand, or cannot understand?

A bunch of yes-man and sycophants? Is that what you want to be surrounded with? Is that how you want to be remembered?

Edited October 4, 2008 by Twilight Bark

[ara baliozian]

While I dislike imperial tendencies without exception, that was not the thrust of my point. The point was that Greeks got conquered by an unsophisticated, militaristic force that couldn't even grasp what scientific thinking was about. And I have no particular sympathy towards the Greeks, especially in light of their treatment of Armenians when they had the power. Anyway, the point was that the dowfall of the Greek culture was not due to internal conflict; they always had that. And the important thing wasn't the dowfall of Greek culture per se. It was the extermination of "enlightenment" by an ignorant and simple-mindd militarism. It took another 1500 years to recover from it.

 

 

Who cares. Pay attention to the subject at hand.

 

 

Hah. That made me laugh. Really, I am smiling as I write this. It just shows how fundamentally clueless and incapable of observation you are sometimes.

 

 

Oh yes, I like contradicting, but only when I see that there is something that needs to be corrected, and nobody else is doing it. That's what critiques do. It might feel familiar to you.

About tolerance. The only area where I admit I am short of tolerance is arrogant stupidity. I tolerate stupidity, if the person is nice. I tolerate arrogance if the person has some justification in being arrogant. However, the combination of the two angers me.

About understanding. I don't know what you base that insult on. You have never properly listened to what I had to say as soon as you detected that I had some serious disagreements with some of what you write. And you don't seem to have anything else that I have written here in this forum or another forum from which you stormed out (where I defended your right to express yourself by the way). How on earth do you know what I understand, or cannot understand?

A bunch of yes-man and sycophants? Is that what you want to be surrounded with? Is that how you want to be remembered?

 

there is an old saying:

"if you hear a mountain has moved, believe it.

if you hear a man has changed, believe it not."

 

i have written against yes-men a thousand times.

and yet, you dare to accuse me of wanting to surround myself with them.

this may suggest that you are more interested in contradicting me than in making a minimal effort to understand me.

 

in any case, i thank you for reading me.

about what you say above: no comment. / ara

 

[Twilight Bark]

i have written against yes-men a thousand times.

and yet, you dare to accuse me of wanting to surround myself with them.

this may suggest that you are more interested in contradicting me than in making a minimal effort to understand me.

 

in any case, i thank you for reading me.

about what you say above: no comment. / ara

 

[Twilight Bark]

i have written against yes-men a thousand times.

and yet, you dare to accuse me of wanting to surround myself with them.

this may suggest that you are more interested in contradicting me than in making a minimal effort to understand me.

Bah. Of course I am accusing you of it, because it seems to be true regardless of what you have written. And in that light, one can also easily and justifiably accuse you of hypocrisy. A trait common with (but admittedly not limited to) power-seekers.

 

in any case, i thank you for reading me.

Yes. I read that particular post because it was posted in a new, different thread, titled "Comment" or some such. I thought perhaps it contained something new and different from your usual output. It got reinserted into yourusual "as i see it" thread by the forum moderator. Otherwise, I don't usually bother reading teh same things over and over again. I get your drift. It's fine. It's 90% true. It's the remaining 10% that I find sometimes quite toxic. And since you cannot deal with the suggestion that you are not 100% correct (or if you are not 100% correct nobody else is either), you have never sustained a civilized exchange of ideas. Whoever traumatized you, they did a good job of making you a mirror image of themselves.

 

about what you say above: no comment. / ara

Yeah.

Edited October 4, 2008 by Twilight Bark

[Yervant1]

Dear members,

 

I like to clear some of the wrong assumptions that have occured in the last few posts here.

Let me give you the time line of some of the posts and topics on Oct. the 1st as it progressed.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

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

In a previous entry I mentioned an Armenian forum in which Turks outnumber Armenians. Some damn fool on this forum has been deleting my things probably because he recognizes himself in what I write. If this anonymous and cowardly fool is an Armenian, I say, shame on him. If he is a Turk, he must be a direct descendant of Sultan Mahomet “whose Turkish troops took Constantinople in 1453 and paused in the butchery long enough to burn most of the library books and toss 120,000 manuscripts into the sea. (See Fernando Baez, A UNIVERSAL HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF BOOKS.)

Dear Ara,

 

You posted your new topic under the "Culture" forum on Oct. the 1st. at 2:12pm and at 2:37 a member posted an objectionable post which was made invisible due to unacceptable language at 3:13 by a moderator. At 2:45pm you posted the same post in your usual "As I see it" forum post # 1906.

 

The moderator in question asked other moderators if it's OK to make this new topic invisible since Ara posted the same in his usual corner and the decision was made to remove the duplicate.

 

I'm very much troubled and dismayed at the harsh language which you accused us of deleting posts when in reality only a duplicate post was made invisible.

This forum only makes posts invisible when the said posts breaks the forum regulations.

 

Hope this cleared the misunderstanding.

 

Yes. I read that particular post because it was posted in a new, different thread, titled "Comment" or some such. I thought perhaps it contained something new and different from your usual output. It got reinserted into yourusual "as i see it" thread by the forum moderator.

Dear TB as I said above the said post was not reinserted by a moderator but posted by Ara. Thanks

 

[ara baliozian]

had i known i would be exposed to TW's snarl i would have avoided that particular forum. i guess no transgression goes unpunished in this world, especially among armenians.

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, October 5, 2008

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

CONTROVERSIAL REFLECTIONS

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

If a big mouth were a sign of intelligence, courage, and initiative, every other Armenian would be another Napoleon, and probably is in his own mind.

*

Sometimes I am described as controversial. If I am, it is only with the naïve, the uninformed, the ignorant, and the unaware.

*

According to some psychologists, the compulsion to speak the truth is neurotic. By contrast, the compulsion to lie is a survival tactic and as such in no need of psychiatric treatment.

*

I realized I was growing old when old men treated me as if I were one of them.

*

After I die I will be remembered by those I insulted. This may not be an ideal form of immortality but, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.

*

If you think I repeat myself, you can reduce the repetitions by 50% if you read me every other day, and 100% if you quit reading me.

*

Yanks have talking heads. We have snarling snouts, and if some readers are right, I am one of them.

*

We tend to forget that our propaganda has as much effect on them as theirs on us.

*

Woody Allen: “I can't listen to too much Wagner, ya know? I start to get the urge to conquer Poland.”

#

Edited October 5, 2008 by ara baliozian

[ara baliozian]

Bah. Of course I am accusing you of it, because it seems to be true regardless of what you have written. And in that light, one can also easily and justifiably accuse you of hypocrisy. A trait common with (but admittedly not limited to) power-seekers.

 

Yes. I read that particular post because it was posted in a new, different thread, titled "Comment" or some such. I thought perhaps it contained something new and different from your usual output. It got reinserted into yourusual "as i see it" thread by the forum moderator. Otherwise, I don't usually bother reading teh same things over and over again. I get your drift. It's fine. It's 90% true. It's the remaining 10% that I find sometimes quite toxic. And since you cannot deal with the suggestion that you are not 100% correct (or if you are not 100% correct nobody else is either), you have never sustained a civilized exchange of ideas. Whoever traumatized you, they did a good job of making you a mirror image of themselves.

 

 

Yeah.

 

you were a nuisance once, -- was it 10 years ago?

and you continue to be a nuisance today.

i suspect the only reason you can stand yourself is that you suffer from an advanced case of narcissism.

enjoy! / ara

[Twilight Bark]

you were a nuisance once, -- was it 10 years ago?

and you continue to be a nuisance today.

i suspect the only reason you can stand yourself is that you suffer from an advanced case of narcissism.

enjoy! / ara

You should be the one to talk. I know my strengths and weaknesses, but this conversation had nothing to do with me. It was supposed to be a slightly philosophical discussion, but you couldn't wait to pull it down to high-school verbal bullying contest. You still can't pull yourself away from that level. It's way past time you grew up.

[ara baliozian]

Monday, October 6, 2008

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

ALL FASCISTS ARE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS

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

That's because fascism and truth are mutually exclusive concepts. Even when they speak the truth they lie because their little truth serves to prop up a Big Lie.

When in power, they silence all dissent because they are afraid to be exposed as liars to their blind followers. When not in power, they verbally abuse anyone who dares to speak in defense of human rights and free speech.

*

Fascism cannot be defeated with arguments. It took a world war to defeat fascism and even then it was only a temporary victory. There are more fascist regimes today than there are democracies, and there are fascists even in democracies. They may not call themselves fascists but they are as fascist as the fascists under Mussolini who was said to be “always right” (“Mussolini ha sempre ragione.”)

Who do you think brainwashes teenage boys and girls to blow themselves up in crowded places and kill as many innocent civilians as possible – all in the name of God, Of course: fascists!

What are skinheads, nationalists, and racists who are brainwashed to believe they know better because they are better?

*

And in case you think we are too smart or civilized to be fascists: I just finished reading an article in an American magazine in which it is stated that sixteen journalists have been beaten up recently in Yerevan and so far no arrests have been made. (See “Caucasus Diary” by John O'Sullivan in NATIONAL REVIEW, September 15, 2008, page 28.)

*

Our fascists are not only pathological liars but also unspeakable cowards because more often than not they don't identify themselves in discussion forums on the Internet. They adopt instead such revealing pseudonyms as “Twilight Snarl,” “Midnight Growl,” and “Morning Phlegm,” when Jack S. Avanakian would be the most appropriate designation.

When asked why he is afraid to write under his own name, one of these heroic specimens explained, “To avoid being the target of Turkish retaliation.” Which of course is utter nonsense because they hide themselves even when abusing their fellow Armenians. They hide themselves even when they write against me, as if I were some kind of mafia don with a gang of hit men at my disposal. To these gutless mice I say: Even if I were a mafia don I wouldn't waste a bullet on them because they are too contemptible to deserve anything but the words “lying cowards.”

#

P.S. Gentle reader: If you recognized yourself in what I just said, you are probably right, which is a good beginning because you are probably right for the first time in your life, and according to an old Macedonian saying (which I just made up): “He who is right once has an average chance of being right again,” -- though I wouldn't bet on it.

*

P.P.S. Tomorrow I plan to discuss about a subject that is seldom or never mentioned in Armenian forums: Turks.

#