as i see it - Pt. IV

[Nakharar]

A sociologist published a book recently in which he proves that crowds act more wisely than individuals.

 

If laymen are wiser than experts, it may be because laymen are like members of a jury, in a position to compare the testimony of experts (who, as a rule, contradict one another) and reach a consensus (which experts are unable or unwilling to do).

 

When crowds misbehave, as they tend to do in time of war and revolution, it is because they are misled by leaders with personal stakes and conflicting goals. If it weren’t for the Sultan or the Young Turks and our revolutionary leaders, the chances are there would have been no massacres and Turks and Armenians would now be living side by side in peace.

 

That's the essence of Jesus Christ's story. The problem of present day society is that there should not be any "laymen". Everyone must be educated.

 

Socrates was perhaps one of the first thinkers to understand that in order to know, we need others. What is being referred to here is the concept of "collective intelligence" an extension of Rousseau's idea of general will and which has become a separate subject matter of sociology.

[ara baliozian]

Friday, November 04, 2005

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

ON BIAS

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

Bias, like the force of gravity, is everywhere, as invisible as an abstraction and as concrete as a ton of bricks or an avalanche. Even when we speak of facts and nothing but facts, bias enters into their selection.

Like lawyers, historians know that by carefully selecting facts and documents they can prove anything, even the innocence of a ruthless serial killer. In several recent editions of the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, for instance, Talaat is described as “an idealist and a man of integrity.”

What I said about lawyers and historians also applies to religious leaders and theologians. When Hemingway said a good writer should be equipped with a reliable “shit-detector,” he was talking about the ability to detect bias.

Whenever you express an opinion, ask yourself the following question: “If I can’t trust bishops, popes and ayatollahs, or rabbis and gurus who speak in the name of God or Truth, why should I trust politicians who speaks in the name of power? -- knowing full well that politicians and their propaganda have played a central role in all wars and massacres?”

*

I put my trust only in men who speak against their own interests. Or, in the words of Jean-Paul Sartre on the final page of his memoirs: “I depend only on men who depend on God and I don’t believe in God.”

#

[Armen]

Socrates was perhaps one of the first thinkers to understand that in order to know, we need others. What is being referred to here is the concept of "collective intelligence" an extension of Rousseau's idea of general will and which has become a separate subject matter of sociology.

 

In the times of Socrates humans acted based on their instincts only. Even Socrates's wisdom was instictive. Those were times when collective intelligence could be right.

 

Jesus was not only the messiah of Christianity but the simbol of a new era in human development: the era of self-consciousness. We know that he was crucified by a free and fair democratic vote. And Pilatus - although being against the decision of the collective intelligence - acted according to the will of crowd.

 

The moral of this story is that the principles of democracy nowadays should not be the same as they were in the times of Socrates, ancient Greece of Rome. Or else, acting based on collective intelligence or establishing a Bolshevik collective farm will not apear to be that different.

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, November 05, 2005

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

A genocide begins with the murder of a single innocent being simply because he belongs to a specific ethnic or religious group.

*

Genocide has nothing to do with number of victims. If an Armenian kills a Turk because he is a Turk, that's a crime against humanity.

*

A Turk once said to me: "My grandfather was killed by an Armenian. What do I do about it?" If true, and I have no way to prove otherwise, we owe this Turk an apology.

*

If Turks refuse to apologize, why should we? Because it is the right thing to do and because to say it is not is to accept Turks as role models of moral conduct.

*

We should not wait for the Turks to ask for an apology. Neither should we coerce the Turks to apologize. A coerced apology is a meaningless gesture. If I owe someone an apology and I refuse to apologize until my arm is twisted, that's not an apology but a maneuver to avoid pain.

#

[ara baliozian]

In the times of Socrates humans acted based on their instincts only. Even Socrates's wisdom was instictive. Those were times when collective intelligence could be right.

 

Jesus was not only the messiah of Christianity but the simbol of a new era in human development: the era of self-consciousness. We know that he was crucified by a free and fair democratic vote. And Pilatus - although being against the decision of the collective intelligence - acted according to the will of crowd.

 

The moral of this story is that the principles of democracy nowadays should not be the same as they were in the times of Socrates, ancient Greece of Rome. Or else, acting based on collective intelligence or establishing a Bolshevik collective farm will not apear to be that different.

 

dear Armen:

i think you are underestimating Socrates and the pre-Socratics: these were highly sophisticated thinkers; and Socrates, by contradicting common assumptions, was far from being instinctive..../ara

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, November 06, 2005

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

All professions are conspiracies against the laity, Shaw said, and he wrote plays with long prefaces (longer than the plays themselves) to prove it. Americans say something very similar when they ask, “What’s your racket?”

*

Dialogue may lead to consensus but endless contradictions (Armenophile and Turcophile academics being cases in point) lead nowhere but to a dead end; and, as it is to be expected, laymen prefer to believe the side that’s to their own interest. But self-interest driven by chauvinist sentiments is an unreliable guide that leads not to truth but to lies.

*

Writes E.H. Gombrich in his LITTLE HISTORY OF THE WORLD: “Children must learn from history how easy it is for human beings to be transformed into inhuman beings.” If children learn that, they will know something adults to no.

*

I no longer ask myself if the enemy is a savage beast. I ask instead, “Does that make me a role model of compassion and understanding? And if I allow my enemy to dehumanize me, am I not a far more dangerous beast than he is?”

#

[ara baliozian]

Monday, November 07, 2005

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

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

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

Until about a year ago I did not know and I did not care to know the other side of the story because I was brought up to believe savage beasts do not deserve a side. I know better now. But before I set out to present a brief sketch, please remember that truth is the first casualty of war.

The Great Powers and Russia were dismembering the Empire and had designs on the carcass. Only Germany was on their side and Germans had problems of their own.

It was at this very critical time when rumor spread that giaours in the Balkans were raping and crucifying Turkish girls. True or false? It makes no difference. As I said at the outset and it bears repeating, truth has always been the first casualty of all wars.

The rape and crucifixion of helpless and innocent Turkish girls by infidels, who also massacred indiscriminately all Turks in their midst provoked and in their eyes justified retaliation of the worst kind.

Call it propaganda. Call it a Big Lie. Call it what you will, but while you are doing that remember that Big Lies and propaganda are not uniquely Turkish aberrations. Neither is genocide.

#

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

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

To dehumanize Turks is subliminal genocide, or to do to them in the abstract what they did to us in the flesh.

*

In my encounters with Armenians in the public eye I have noticed that their public assertions seldom match with their private comments. One could say that double-talk is another attribute we share with the rest of mankind.

*

We are so unused to using our brains that anyone who dares to think for himself is branded as a dispenser of unmitigated b.s.

#

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

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

Journalism identifies wolves and sheep. Investigative reporting exposes wolves in sheep's clothing. Literature tries to understand and explain why wolves, sheep, and wolves in sheep's clothing behave as they do. One could also say that the aim of literature is to make the incomprehensible comprehensible.

*

Whenever something goes wrong, I begin by analyzing my own motives and conduct. I ask myself, "Where did I go wrong?" That's because I have a far better chance to change myself than the world or my enemy. It is different with politicians and killers, who begin by pleading not guilty, and when the evidence says otherwise they plead either extenuating circumstances or insanity. That's because both politicians and killers belong to a different species. They are lesser homo sapiens. They may even be the missing link.

*

If I blame all the world's problems on politicians and criminals, do I absolve the rest of mankind? I do, except for dupes who by surrendering their intelligence to someone that doesn't have much of it himself, become co-conspirators.

*

Thursday, November 10, 2005

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

If you want to see beauty you can see it everywhere. For thousands of years artists have been observing beauty in the most unlikely places and they have not run of places yet. And if you want to see ugliness, you can see it everywhere too, beginning with your own heart. I speak from experience.

*

Americans love to quote their critics, including foreign critics.

Quoting them has become part of their entertainment industry.

*

Writing for Armenians amounts to making yourself a target for their poison arrows. That's why I keep it short - to present a smaller target. Were I better writer, I would keep it shorter.

*

The unspoken message of most comments: "I am smarter than you," and not "I have something to add."

#

[ara baliozian]

Friday, November 11, 2005

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

We study history to learn from it. As junkies of medievalism and massacrism, the only thing our historians have taught us is to brag or lament.

*

According to a well-know maxim, “No one wins a war,” and since all war-makers operate on the assumption that they will be the victors (because no one in his right mind goes to war to lose it), it follows, all war-makers are wrong.

*

Armenians make great emperors (Basil I), politicians (Deukmejian), and diplomats (Mikoyan), but only outside Armenia. In Armenia and Armenian environments in Diaspora they produce nothing but second-rate bunglers who either brag or lament with the full support of our academics, brown-nosers, and dime-a-dozen know-it-all pundits. We have been and continue to be at the mercy of mediocrities whose number one enemy is excellence and whose number one concern is number one.

*

A headline in our local paper today reads: “Canadians increasingly cynical about government.” The article goes on to explain that only one in four Canadians trust their politicians. My guess is, only one in 400 or perhaps even 4000 Armenians trust theirs.

#

[ara baliozian]

Friday, November 11, 2005

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

We study history to learn from it. As junkies of medievalism and massacrism, the only thing our historians have taught us is to brag or lament.

*

According to a well-know maxim, "No one wins a war," and since all war-makers operate on the assumption that they will be the victors (because no one in his right mind goes to war to lose it), it follows, all war-makers are wrong.

*

Armenians make great emperors (Basil I), politicians (Deukmejian), and diplomats (Mikoyan), but only outside Armenia. In Armenia and Armenian environments in Diaspora they produce nothing but second-rate bunglers who either brag or lament with the full support of our academics, brown-nosers, and dime-a-dozen know-it-all pundits. We have been and continue to be at the mercy of mediocrities whose number one enemy is excellence and whose number one concern is number one.

*

A headline in our local paper today reads: "Canadians increasingly cynical about government." The article goes on to explain that only one in four Canadians trust their politicians. My guess is, only one in 400 or perhaps even 4000 Armenians trust theirs.

#

Saturday, November 12, 2005

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

What's the use of writing if nothing changes?

But if perceptions change, reality may follow.

One can always hope, of course.

Yes, provided one does not confuse hope with wishful thinking.

But what if hope is another word for wishful thinking?

One must go on if only because the alternative is silence and despair.

*

In today's editorial cartoon a war veteran is reading his daily paper with headlines on the front page about political scandals, indictments, and wheeling-and-dealing, as he muses: "My comrades and I fought for this?" And as I scan the headlines about Turks and Turkey (19 of them) in the latest issue of an Armenian weekly (16 pages) I cannot help wondering: "Did our writers work and die for this?"

*

Strange country, stranger people! They utter a cliché or a platitude and call it a philosophy. In a land devoid of philosophers, everyone is a philosopher.

#

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, November 13, 2005

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

WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

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

The rich view the poor as lazy and the poor return the compliment by viewing the rich as exploiters, blood-suckers, and crooks motivated by greed.

*

Once in a while I see letters to the editor in our local paper berating the poor for their dependence on government handouts. Surviving on minimum wage in an environment where plumbers can make as much as $40.00 for four minutes’ work, and dentists $80.00 for eight minutes’ work (I speak from experience) is not easy. And speaking of government handouts: what about grants to corporations and academics, not to mention loopholes in the tax code designed to benefit the rich rather than the poor.

*

I have published thousands of commentaries and written many more letters to readers and friends, and none of them ends with the words “Mi kich pogh oughargetsek” (send us a little money). But every other day I receive a letter from an Armenian organization or church that ends with Panchoonie’s punch line. You may now guess who is accused of repeating himself.

*

Money will not save a nation, but accountability, solidarity, and vision may. Consider the fall of empires: it was not lack of money that did it, but too much of it.

*

When two think alike, the chances are either one or both are not thinking.

#

[ara baliozian]

Monday, November 14, 2005

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

SOMEBODY UP THERE DOESN’T LIKE US

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

Sorry, but I can’t come up with any other explanation.

And if Somebody up there doesn’t like us

it may be because we are not a particularly likeable people.

If He liked us, why did He abandon us

at the mercy of ruthless tyrants, bloodthirsty savages,

and incompetent bunglers?

Six centuries under sultans

Followed by seven decades under Bolsheviks.

Far from being the chosen people,

we may well qualify as the unchosen and the abandoned.

Naregatsi may have a point:

like the stars in the firmament

and the grains of sand in all the deserts

and on all the beaches of the world,

our sins must be numberless.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

But no matter how hard I try,

I can’t come up with any other explanation.

If you can, I am all ears.

But please, no more sermonizing and speechifying.

No more bragging and lamenting.

I have had enough of both.

And be forewarned that

after decades of exposure

to recycled chauvinist crapola,

I come equipped with a highly sensitive shit detector.

#

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

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

ON PREJUDICE

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

Faith does more than move mountains. It allows an idiot to think he knows better. I was such a thoroughly brainwashed Catholic as a boy that I was sure anyone who did not share my faith was a lesser man.

*

I was taught many things as a boy except to consider my fellow men as equals. Later, when I learned the meaning of the word prejudice, it did not even occur to me to connect it to myself and my attitude towards non-Catholics. And much later when I too was treated with prejudice in a non-Catholic environment, my first reaction was confusion, disorientation, malaise, and alienation. Again, the word prejudice never entered my mind.

*

We begin by thinking we are the center of the world and we end by thinking our nation, or civilization, or race, or religion is superior to all others.

*

What’s sinister about religions and ideologies is not what they teach but what they fail to teach.

*

During the last few days I read several commentaries about the French riots, one of which was titled “French Riots are part of global clash of civilizations,” and another “Blame French riots on poverty and lack of civil rights.” According to the first pundit, the only answer is “for the two civilizations to keep their distance”; according to the second, the elimination of racism and prejudice. The implication in the first pundit’s answer: prejudice is as old as mankind and no amount of education and legislation will eradicate it completely. The answer of the second pundit: maybe so but we must move in that direction if we want to avert World War III or a long series of catastrophic clashes. Who is right? I don’t know, but I have the following suggestion to anyone who wants to make a contribution to world peace: Whenever you think your country or god is better than someone else’s, ask yourself: By whose criteria? If the answer is by your own or your educators, you can be sure of one thing: you may not be an idiot but you think like one.

#

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

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

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

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

In our environment flattery will get you everywhere. That too is part of our Ottoman heritage. If you doubt my word, try the following experiment. Write a letter to an editor praising his weekly, and another, under a different name, criticizing it, and see which gets into print pronto.

Once when I wrote a letter critical of an editorial, I received the following message from the editor: "We don't as a rule print letters critical of our editorials." Why not? No explanation was given. As Saroyan's wife writes in her memoirs: "When I say la, you must understand lalabloo."

If the flunkey of a boss, bishop, or benefactor wrote the editorial, criticizing it would amount to heresy, perhaps even sacrilege. As for violating a reader's fundamental human right of free speech: imagine if you can raising the issue in the presence of a sultan.

And speaking of sultans: I will never forget the day I met one of our national benefactors - strike "met," make it, saw him from a distance. Because as soon as his presence became known, he was immediately surrounded by a defensive phalanx of brown-nosers.

And speaking of brown-nosers: when asked to name his role models, this very same benefactor's right-hand man who parades as an intellectual leader, named - you guessed - the national benefactor, who as far as I know has never said or written a single line worth publishing.

There has been a great deal of talk lately about Intelligent Design. As I look back at our history and what's happening today in our Homeland and Diaspora, I can't help asking: Where is the Design? Where is the Intelligence?

#

[Armen]

dear Armen:

i think you are underestimating Socrates and the pre-Socratics: these were highly sophisticated thinkers; and Socrates, by contradicting common assumptions, was far from being instinctive..../ara

 

Sophistication does not always bring to the right results. Some may say Jesus was unsophisticated in his self sacrifice. Or they might say that this story did not happen at all. The same goes for Socrat and the pre-Socratics. Maybe they never existed and there were people who invented them ... The way some others invented Jesus.

 

The simbols and the simptoms of historical development are the most important for me. Socrat (and the whole Greek school) simolizes an era. This stage of human development changed after Jesus because his story is the first one to manifest a human self-sacrifice for other humans as the most necessary mechanizm that human soul must be equipped with in our days. Why? Because it is evident that even the best socio-political organization that humans invented until now - Hellenic democracy - leads to mutual distruction.

 

Hellenic democracy was good for those times. Aristotel's phraze: "Crowd always thinks better than one man" is the culmination of the development of this thinking in those times. As I said earlier this worked for the times when humans were more instinctive in their emotions, actions, thinking and everything else.

 

It is evident the the consciousness of present day man and the consciousness of Socrat are different. We have more consciousness because we have more needs, ambition, information etc. etc. And we need more self-consciousness than Socrat did to deal with all this.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Armen

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, November 17, 2005

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

SEVEN SYMPTOMS OF FASCISM

1.

When leaders operate on the assumption that they know better than the people, and use their superior brand of knowledge to enhance their power and prestige as opposed to exercising it in the interest of the people. To put it more bluntly, they believe their privileged knowledge authorizes them to behave like masters rather than servants.

*

2.

When they explain the nation's problems by putting the blame on others rather than on the corruption, incompetence, and blunders of their predecessors. Hitler blamed Germany's problems on Jews, and we blame ours on Turks, the degenerate West, and our own traitors and collaborators with the enemy.

*

3.

When the men at the top assume their personal integrity is such that accountability becomes an irrelevant concept.

*

4.

When they prefer the company of yes-men and brown-nosers to that of critics and dissidents.

*

5.

When they speak in the name of an ideology, which they confuse with theology.

*

6.

When they control the press by setting editorial policy and they confuse dissent with hostility or disloyalty.

*

7.

When a leader and his gang of elitist cronies view their subjects as lesser men.

#

Edited November 17, 2005 by ara baliozian

[ara baliozian]

Sophistication does not always bring to the right results. Some may say Jesus was unsophisticated in his self sacrifice. Or they might say that this story did not happen at all. The same goes for Socrat and the pre-Socratics. Maybe they never existed and there were people who invented them ... The way some others invented Jesus.

 

The simbols and the simptoms of historical development are the most important for me. Socrat (and the whole Greek school) simolizes an era. This stage of human development changed after Jesus because his story is the first one to manifest a human self-sacrifice for other humans as the most necessary mechanizm that human soul must be equipped with in our days. Why? Because it is evident that even the best socio-political organization that humans invented until now - Hellenic democracy - leads to mutual distruction.

 

Hellenic democracy was good for those times. Aristotel's phraze: "Crowd always thinks better than one man" is the culmination of the development of this thinking in those times. As I said earlier this worked for the times when humans were more instinctive in their emotions, actions, thinking and everything else.

 

It is evident the the consciousness of present day man and the consciousness of Socrat are different. We have more consciousness because we have more needs, ambition, information etc. etc. And we need more self-consciousness than Socrat did to deal with all this.

 

Armen:

You are right: many crimes have been committed in the name of Greek democracy, the first of which was the execution of Socrates; but many more crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity -- remember Voltaire's dictum: "Since it was a religious war, there were no survivors." / ara

[ara baliozian]

Friday, November 18, 2005

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

PROBLEMS AND THEIR SOLUTIONS

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

Whenever I speak of our problems, I am told in no uncertain terms, “We know all about them. What we need is solutions,” the implication being, unless I make our problems disappear by verbal magic, I might as well shut up and mind my own business.

Common sense, common knowledge, and common decency (rare commodities among us) tell us, the first and most important step in solving a problem is to state it as clearly, objectively, and accurately as possible. But as long as our men at the top reject all charges of incompetence, we will consistently fail to do that.

If one is to believe our leaders, their conduct and the conduct of their predecessors has been beyond reproach. If you dare to question that absurd assertion, you will be immediately labeled an enemy of the people and silenced (I speak from experience).

In such an environment, where denial has become second nature in our leadership, only divine intervention will solve our problems, and so far there is no evidence to suggest that somebody up there is remotely interested in getting involved in our affairs.

#

[Armen]

Armen:

You are right: many crimes have been committed in the name of Greek democracy, the first of which was the execution of Socrates; but many more crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity -- remember Voltaire's dictum: "Since it was a religious war, there were no survivors." / ara

 

I don't think it is right to compare Greek democracy with Christianity in that way. It is not important who and how used them as a tool to gain power and money. Deception is always there.

 

I just wanted to emphacise that the central notion of Christianity is one human being's self-sacrifice for another human being. It is not there in Greek period. One could say that Christian thought is an evolution of the Greek classics.

 

The optimal and effective organisation of human interaction based on incentives, interest groups, pluralistic representative authority, free market, free speech etc. are not enough to ensure even the survival of humanity.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Armen

[ara baliozian]

Monday, November 21, 2005

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

THE MASSACRE CONTINUES…

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

The purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to document and expose American incompetence and intelligence failures, rather than Al Qaida’s barbarism and crimes. If so far we haven’t had a 4/24 Commission it may be because the blame-game happens to be our favorite national sport.

*

There are those who believe by covering up our failures, we will have a better chance to enhance our prestige and emphasize our infallibility. We should not be surprise if this tactic works only with the very naive and inexperienced.

*

The majority of Americans believe today Bush invaded Iraq on bad intelligence. One could also say that we challenged the might of the Ottoman Empire on the false promises of the West.

*

In politics, as in life, mistakes happen all the time. What doesn’t happen with the same frequency is the readiness to admit them. And as Bush hesitates, the massacre continues.

#

[ara baliozian]

I don't think it is right to compare Greek democracy with Christianity in that way. It is not important who and how used them as a tool to gain power and money. Deception is always there.

 

I just wanted to emphacise that the central notion of Christianity is one human being's self-sacrifice for another human being. It is not there in Greek period. One could say that Christian thought is an evolution of the Greek classics.

 

The optimal and effective organisation of human interaction based on incentives, interest groups, pluralistic representative authority, free market, free speech etc. are not enough to ensure even the survival of humanity.

 

Armen: the history of an idea is not the same as the idea.

all ideas can be perverted to the point of being their own contradictions.

The greeks produced heroes and christians produced many martyrs.

but christianity as it is practiced today is different from that practiced by martyrs.

Let theologians and philosophers study ideas; historians and the rest of us mortal should judge an idea by its past performce, its record, its history...if, that is, we want to understand reality./ara

[Armen]

Armen: the history of an idea is not the same as the idea.

all ideas can be perverted to the point of being their own contradictions.

The greeks produced heroes and christians produced many martyrs.

but christianity as it is practiced today is different from that practiced by martyrs.

Let theologians and philosophers study ideas; historians and the rest of us mortal should judge an idea by its past performce, its record, its history...if, that is, we want to understand reality./ara

 

History can never be used to understand reality.

 

One of the best examples of this is the stock exchange. People make times series analysis with stock portfolios to find out their present standing and to predict future revenues. And it never works. Rates float freely all the time and only those who have first hand acurate information from power brokers make real money.

 

Same with our general reality. History can never give you basis for your present or future actions and it never repeats itself. The only way to understand reality it to grasp the fundamental necessity of the moment. We must understand this fundemental necessity from historical simptoms, not the historical records (facts, dates, names).

 

To illustrate you how misleading can historical record be I want to invite your attention to the 30 Years War. It started with religious reasons and finished by giving birth to European nationalism. Can we say that European nationalism was born from religious wars? There is no way anyone can prove it. Yet, if you open a normal history book the causes and effects of 30 years war are given just that way. So, what was the reason that in 30 years time people's minds changed drastically in Central and Western Europe? Again we should find out what was the real necessity of that time. Maybe the people were so hungry to identify themselves with something that they went after the national idea. Those who find out why they needed nationalism will give the answer to the question "What was the necessity of that time?".

 

There are many people who talk of reality as if historians contributed to this world better than theologicians or phylosopers. Mmm.. let me name the first one that comes to my mind, Plutarc - the lier of all times and nations.

 

If we judge the idea by its record we may end up rejecting democracy at all because the worst tirans of all times - Hitler and Stalin - were both elected by democratic vote and were loved by their people. Can it be in reality that the so called "people" are stupid? Yes, I saw it in 2004 US presidential elections. If US now is threatened by China's economy or by Europe's dependency on the Russian oil its people will vote for a tirant. No doubt about it. The Greek democracy in the West was a nice idea until there were Communist Russia and China. Now when both Russia and China are practicing free market and some personal freedoms, tough geopolitics comes back. Let's see if Greek democracy can deal with this.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Armen

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

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

First time he cried wolf they rushed to his aid. Second time he cried wolf they said bon appetit to the wolf and good riddance to the little prick who got a kick out of pulling their dicks.

From Yeghishe (5th century) to Charents (20th century) our writers have been crying wolf by echoing the Biblical warning "a house divided against itself cannot stand," and they have been ignored.

When on the eve of the Genocide Zohrab said the sky is about to fall, they said, "Zohrab effendi is exaggerating."

Long before Zohrab, when Raffi said the Ottoman Empire was no place for Armenians because Turks had no respect for human life, he too was ignored.

Some people collect stamps. We collect defeats, disasters, and tragedies. We even brag about them. "First nation to suffer a genocide in the 20th century," we declare at every opportunity as if that were something to crow about. We go further and brag about how smart we are, all the while ignoring, sometimes even silencing our writers.

Sartre is right: literature is a useless passion. It saves no one.

To friends who tell me not to give up, I say I haven't so far, but I am beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. This no doubt will be read with pleasure by readers who think of me as a prick who gets a kick out of pulling their dicks.

#

[ara baliozian]

History can never be used to understand reality.

 

One of the best examples of this is the stock exchange. People make times series analysis with stock portfolios to find out their present standing and to predict future revenues. And it never works. Rates float freely all the time and only those who have first hand acurate information from power brokers make real money.

 

Same with our general reality. History can never give you basis for your present or future actions and it never repeats itself. The only way to understand reality it to grasp the fundamental necessity of the moment. We must understand this fundemental necessity from historical simptoms, not the historical records (facts, dates, names).

 

To illustrate you how misleading can historical record be I want to invite your attention to the 30 Years War. It started with religious reasons and finished by giving birth to European nationalism. Can we say that European nationalism was born from religious wars? There is no way anyone can prove it. Yet, if you open a normal history book the causes and effects of 30 years war are given just that way. So, what was the reason that in 30 years time people's minds changed drastically in Central and Western Europe? Again we should find out what was the real necessity of that time. Maybe the people were so hungry to identify themselves with something that they went after the national idea. Those who find out why they needed nationalism will give the answer to the question "What was the necessity of that time?".

 

There are many people who talk of reality as if historians contributed to this world better than theologicians or phylosopers. Mmm.. let me name the first one that comes to my mind, Plutarc - the lier of all times and nations.

 

If we judge the idea by its record we may end up rejecting democracy at all because the worst tirans of all times - Hitler and Stalin - were both elected by democratic vote and were loved by their people. Can it be in reality that the so called "people" are stupid? Yes, I saw it in 2004 US presidential elections. If US now is threatened by China's economy or by Europe's dependency on the Russian oil its people will vote for a tirant. No doubt about it. The Greek democracy in the West was a nice idea until there were Communist Russia and China. Now when both Russia and China are practicing free market and some personal freedoms, tough geopolitics comes back. Let's see if Greek democracy can deal with this.

 

i have heard of people who have made a fortune by studying trends in the stock market.

i have never heard of anyone who has made a penny by approaching the market with religious faith.

History is not a perfect tool -- even historians admit that.

But it is a tool.

competent historians like Stpengler and Toynbee are also philosophers of history.

In the 10th volume of his STUDY OF HISTORY Toynbee goes as far as trying to reconcile all organized religions in order to promote peace and harmony in the world. He was convinced, you see, that as long as believers continue to claim monopoly on truth or god, there will be no peace in the world. he did not live long enough to witness 9/11 and its aftermath. / ara

[Armen]

i have heard of people who have made a fortune by studying trends in the stock market.

i have never heard of anyone who has made a penny by approaching the market with religious faith.

History is not a perfect tool -- even historians admit that.

But it is a tool.

competent historians like Stpengler and Toynbee are also philosophers of history.

In the 10th volume of his STUDY OF HISTORY Toynbee goes as far as trying to reconcile all organized religions in order to promote peace and harmony in the world. He was convinced, you see, that as long as believers continue to claim monopoly on truth or god, there will be no peace in the world. he did not live long enough to witness 9/11 and its aftermath. / ara

 

I could say with 99% certainty that majority of US stock players are faithful believers in US dollar. So are many other investors around the world. Surely, their calculations are based on history but taking into account the numerous market failures, they are nothing but religious believers. How else could anyone explain the Asian financial crisis in 1997? An army of professional analysis and finacial gurus was caluclating and comparing historical records and forcasting growth .. but suddenly the Asian Tigers turned into Asian Cats overnight. So, investors approach market with just that, religious faith. Only very few of them are Gods.

 

If by only making money people could solve all the problems we should leave in Haven on Earth by now. When comparing money with faith, money always wins. Sure! Who could argue with that?! We need money first and faith second. It is an iron logic. But there wouldn't peace and harmony even if today religion did not exist at all. Wouldn't Bush go into war just for money? It IS his primary reason. All the BS about Muslim fundementalism is nonsense. Westerners want the control of strategic oil reserves to insure their present lifestyle. There is no other reason. In 20th century religion has not been the primary real reason for wars. Making more money and securing maximized profits for national corporations was the real cause of wars. The last clash was between economic and social ideologies. Now that is gone as well. Currently we only have money against money.