as i see it - Pt. IV

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

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

DEFINING LITERATURE

BY MIRNA DOUZJIAN

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

“1. Miscellaneous writings whose central themes are Mount Ararat, the Homeland, and the Massacres. 2. Anything that is unreadable and remains unread. 3. Miscellaneous writings by idlers, daydreamers, deranged eccentrics, and individuals who have nothing better to do.”

*

OFFENDING THE GODS

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

When those in power want to silence someone, they invariably come up with an excellent reason. They permanently silenced Socrates because they accused him of offending the gods, when all he was doing was exposing their ignorance. One reason why some of our greatest masterpieces, like Yervant Odian’s THE COUNCILMAN’S WIFE and FAMILY, HONOR, MORALITY, remain untranslated, unread, buried, and forgotten is that they offend our gods.

*

MORE ON OUR GODS

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

Our publishers have become so dependent on the goodwill of our bosses, bishops, and benefactors that there are no more safe subjects for discussion except Turks. Hence the proliferation of books on massacres by Turcocentric pundits in whose view Armenian history begins and ends in 1915.

*

TURCOCENTRISM: A DEFINITION

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

A mental condition that is more akin to an acute obsession that requires immediate psychological therapy.

*

DIALOGUE, ARMENIAN STYLE

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

A confrontation in which both sides spend more time slinging mud at each other than trying to make sense.

*

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

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

Since they were deceived by every nation they dealt with, the only thing our leaders appear to have learned is to deceive, and since they are not smart enough to deceive anyone else, they deceive their own people, after brainwashing them to believe they are just about the smartest people on earth, on the grounds that it takes seven Jews to deceive an Armenian.

 

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, March 29, 2007

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

Victor Hugo: “The smallest animals are the greatest vermin, and the smallest minds have the greatest number of prejudices.”

*

Keith Duckworth: “It is better to be un-informed than ill-informed.”

*

We like to forget that the Armenian elite at the turn of the last century in the Ottoman Empire was divided between the optimists and the realists. The optimists (i.e. the revolutionaries) prevailed and survived to write their version of the story. What happened to the realists? I suspect they became so disgusted with their adversaries and their campaign of deception that they went underground where they or their offspring continue to live, unlike the offspring of our “heroes” and “statesmen” who carry on their campaign of deception. In this connection it is worth mentioning that General Antranik shared the disgust of the realists and at one point he went as far as declaring the revolutionaries to be war criminals who deserved to be hanged.

*

For more on this subject see Pars Tuglaci, THE ROLE OF THE DADIAN FAMILY IN OTTOMAN, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL LIFE (Istanbul, 1993); and the second volume of Gourgen Mahari’s memoirs titled MANGOUTIUN (Childhood), (Yerevan, 1967, page 228).

*

For a more panoramic view of events under discussion see also Philip Mansel’s CONSTANTINOPLE: CITY OF THE WORLD’S DESIRE, 1453-1924 (London, 1995).

*

A typical passage in Mansel’s book reads: “In 1914 some Armenians helped Russian troops in Anatolia against Ottoman Forces. There was an Armenian rising in Van. In Constantinople itself some Armenians were seen gloating over the first Russian victories. The Committee [of the Young Turks] decided on a policy of extermination. In Anatolia, between sex and eight hundred thousand Armenian men, women and children died during deportations, epidemics and massacres (many thousands of Turks and Kurds also died in the same region during the war). From Constantinople itself 2,432 men, the elite of the Armenian community, were deported. Among them Krikor Zohrab, deputy for Constantinople, who had given shelter to Talaat during the counter-revolution in April 1909. Few were seen again.”

Elsewhere we read: “Some Armenians hoped for a massacre in the belief that it would provoke the intervention of the great powers.”

And: “In 1895-6 both the Sultan and the Armenian revolutionaries treated the Armenians of Constantinople as pawns, without regard for human life.”

#

 

 

[ara baliozian]

Friday, March 30, 2007

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

NOTES AND COMMENTS

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

It is the emotionally involved more than anyone else who are in need of impersonal and objective advice, and they are the least appreciative of it.

*

Idiotic arguments can be contradicted even by an idiot.

*

Mirna Douzjian: “PATRIOTISM. A justification for racism. 2. A sentiment that is inborn in all exemplary Armenians.”

*

Socrates was silenced because he insulted the gods. Solzhenitsyn was silenced because he insulted Stalin. It’s always the same story. Just because they are on top, they think they dwell on Olympus.

*

Henry de Montherlant: “Blessed are my enemies for they will not betray me.”

*

Jean Daniel: “Even in the best of cases, power degrades those who exercise it.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Friday, March 30, 2007

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

NOTES AND COMMENTS

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

It is the emotionally involved more than anyone else who are in need of impersonal and objective advice, and they are the least appreciative of it.

*

Idiotic arguments can be contradicted even by an idiot.

*

Mirna Douzjian: “PATRIOTISM. A justification for racism. 2. A sentiment that is inborn in all exemplary Armenians.”

*

Socrates was silenced because he insulted the gods. Solzhenitsyn was silenced because he insulted Stalin. It’s always the same story. Just because they are on top, they think they dwell on Olympus.

*

Henry de Montherlant: “Blessed are my enemies for they will not betray me.”

*

Jean Daniel: “Even in the best of cases, power degrades those who exercise it.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, March 31, 2007

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

PERSISTENT BUGGERS

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

A politician’s most valuable possession in his image, and his central concern is his power. But he will never tell you that. That’s why everything he says is as distant from reality as propaganda is from truth. This applies not only to their politicians but also to our own, and in general to all politicians regardless of race, color, creed, tribe, and ideology.

*

We shouldn’t believe everything we read in the papers. Neither should we believe anything politicians tell us. As when their side expects us to believe they acted in self-defense even when they massacred unarmed civilians; and when our side tells us they did whatever they did in the interest of the people, even when they were too busy saving their own skins to defend a single victim. These musings occur to me while reading Antonia Arslan’s SKYLARK FARM, translated from the Italian by Geoffrey Brock (New York, 2006).

*

THE VOICE OF TWO ARMENIAN POETS

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

Narine Avedian:

“I have not yet written

A single poem

On the heroic past

Of my nation.

Neither do I feel like writing

On what’s going on today.”

*

Armen Shegoyan:

”The past: what is it to me?

Meaningless lines,

Infinite sorrow,

Not much faith.

*

A FRENCH THINKER SPEAKS

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

Nicolas de Chamfort: “In France they leave alone those who set fires and persecute those who sound the alarm.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, April 01, 2007

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

MADAME BOVARY AND STALIN,

OR IMAGINATION AND REALITY

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

Krikor Zohrab: “My code of ethics: Between the real and the imaginary, choose the real; between truth and falsehood, choose truth – at all times, everywhere.” And yet, (the two saddest words in the English language, it has been said) he imagined Talaat (his future assassin) to be his friend. So much so that, at one point he went as far endangering his own life to save him from the secret police of the Sultan.

*

Aristophanes ridiculed Socrates, Aristotle contradicted Plato, and Churchill insulted Gandhi. Only fascists believe themselves to be beyond criticism; and only the fascist in us sees no merit in any comment or observation that may be remotely critical of our limitations, prejudices, misconceptions, and fallacies.

*

We are products of oppression and victims of tyrannical regimes, and “oppression corrupts everything it touches, even the highest moral virtues” (Zohrab).

*

Some of the greatest blunders in the history of mankind were committed because tribes, nations, and empires, very much like Don Quixote and Madame Bovary, confused imagination with reality, or propaganda with truth.

*

Any piece of writing that demands our full agreement or assumes to be beyond criticism is fascist. A writer ought to know better than to demand subservience from his readers.

*

The emotionally involved cannot discriminate right from wrong. They can only think in terms of you are either with me or against me.

*

So far it’s been our propaganda against theirs, and as long as propagandists are in charge, nothing will change. That’s because propaganda and progress are mutually exclusive concepts.

*

The recently deceased Henri Troyat (real name Tarassov, some say Torossian) explaining why he never visited Moscow, where he was born: “In my dreams, the snow is always whiter.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Monday, April 02, 2007

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

IN DEFENSE OF GOD AND COUNTRY

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

Shortly before he died, one of our elder statesmen called from Los Angeles to inform me that Gostan Zarian had been his neighbor and that he had not bothered to make his acquaintance because he had been warned by fellow partisans that he (Zarian) “khentin megn eh” (he is a nutcase); and like all partisans who divide mankind into them and us – “them” being aliens, and “us” being trustworthy sources of knowledge – he had trusted the judgment of his fellow partisans more than his own. If I am not mistaken, it was Thoreau who once compared this type of mentality to that of swine in a barn on a cold day.

*

The Turks massacred unarmed civilians in defense of god and country; and our partisans today silence dissidents and massacre ideas for the same reason. What Armenians and Turks share in common with the rest of mankind is the certainty that they will never be exposed as brainwashed idiots, and if exposed they will not plead guilty as charged, because if they are guilty, so is the overwhelming majority of mankind; because at one time or another every nation on earth has slaughtered civilians and silenced critics in defense of god and country. Or, in the words of a Turkish political leader in the White House, as quoted in one of our weeklies: “Armenians are our Indians,” meaning, you (Yanks) massacred Indians, we massacred Armenians. If we are guilty, so are you.

*

Every country is someone’s homeland; every idol is someone’s god; and everyone’s god is the only true god. It follows, as long as idiots are in the majority, the world will have no peace.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

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

WHO IS MINDING THE STORE?

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

One of the nicest Armenians I know is half-Azeri.

Some of the most ardent Armenian nationalists, from Abovian to Zarian, married odars.

One of our elder statesmen once told me there are men in key positions within our organizations who are not Armenians but Turks – they speak fluent Armenian, they deliver patriotic speeches, they write fiery anti-Turkish commentaries and editorials, but they are Turks.

In his memoirs, a former KGB agent now living in America writes, there are several KGB plants within the higher echelons of the ARF.

Fact or fiction? I don’t know and I have no way of knowing. On several occasions I have myself been accused of being a member of several nefarious anti-Armenian outfits by readers who may only pretend to be Armenian because they bear such surnames as Mamikonian (of Chinese descent) or Bagratuni (Jewish).

After reading Khorenatsi, an odar friend expresses astonishment at the fact that most Armenian kings, queens, princes, princelings, and princesslings were not Armenians but Persians and Assyrians.

There is a well-known French writer of children’s books whose name is Mamikonian, but as far as I know she doesn’t write about Armenians and she is not involved in Armenian affairs.

Henri Troyat (real name Tarassov or Torossian), prolific French novelist and biographer, is identified as a Russian in all French reference works. I remember to have read an interview with him in which he denies his Armenian identity -- I am informed by a fellow Armenian that more recently he had denied his denial. But the fact remains that he had no interest in his Armenian identity or in Armenian history and culture, and throughout his life he did his utmost to stay away from Armenian affairs.

And then there are our bosses, bishops, and benefactors.

Zarian on bosses: “They have been of no political use to us. Their greatest enemy is free speech.”

Baronian on bishops: “Do you want to dine and wine to your heart’s content every day? Be a bishop.”

Raffi on benefactors: “Our capitalists are the most corrupt and degenerate members of the community. Nothing good can come out of them. These people worship only money. They are men without a country. They belong to no nation on earth. Profit is their only homeland.”

Were Raffi, Baronian, and Zarian Armenians? I don’t know and I don’t care. I only know they were honest men, and I am more than willing to embrace an honest man as my brother even if he happens to be a Turk.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

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

THEN AND NOW

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

Levon *****lian (1868-1943): “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.”

*

Shirvanzadeh (real name Alexander Movsessian: 1858-1935): “The narrow partisan line that is espoused by our press is the enemy of all literature.”

*

Until very recently our writers analyzed us. We now have a generation of academics, pundits, and self-appointed defenders of the faith who do nothing but analyze Turks.

*

Anyone can be a victim, no merit in that. Getting over it, that’s different.

*

There is a type of mediocrity who resents anyone who is not a lesser mediocrity.

*

Praise heard a thousand times is not enough. Criticism heard only once is already more than enough.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, April 05, 2007

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

VICTIMS AS VICTIMIZERS

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

Armenians as victims: I will let more competent and qualified men than myself to deal with that aspect of our history and identity. Armenians as victimizers: that’s what I propose to explore here.

If you are one of those brainwashed dupes who believe, since Armenians can do no wrong, they cannot victimize anyone, allow me to quote two well-known and highly respected sources who cannot be said to be dissidents or anti-establishment critics because, in addition to being members of a political party, they were on friendly terms with a good number of establishment figures in both the Homeland and the Diaspora, among them several bosses, bishops, and benefactors.

Antranik Zaroukian (1912-1989), poet, novelist, critic, editor: “They speak of the cross and nail us to it again as they speak.”

Hagop Garabents (1925-1996), novelist, short story writer, essayist, and Voice of America broadcaster: “Once upon a time we fought and shed our blood for freedom. We are now afraid of free speech.”

In our context, to be afraid of free speech means, anyone who dares to deal honestly and objectively with facts is ruthlessly silenced and alienated on grounds of anti-Armenianism.

To those who say, at least we don’t victimize others, only ourselves, I say, that’s because the weak cannot victimize the mighty; the weak can victimize only those who are weaker; in the same way that capitalists do not exploit fellow capitalists, only workers.

Before I rest my case, allow me to quote Zaroukian again: “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.”

Contempt, blind instinct, fanaticism: that sounds to me less like Armenianism and more like Ottomanism.

And now, listen to one of those silenced and alienated writers speaking:

Stepan Voskanian (1825-1901): “For thirty-five years I did not write a single line in Armenian. I was treated so shabbily by my fellow Armenians that I could not help hating everything that I held dear as a young man; and since I was starved by my own countrymen, I had to write in French in order to survive.”

Next time you lament our victims, I suggest you remember all our victims, not just a fraction of them.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Friday, April 06, 2007

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

ON OPTIMISM

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

After contributing an optimistic commentary to one of our weeklies, a friend writes: “I wonder, was I deceiving myself and my readers?”

*

ON INTELLECTUALS

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

Our intellectuals (so-called), whose function is to expose the lies of propaganda, the double-talk of speechifiers and sermonizers, and the shenanigans of those in power, now allow themselves to be feted by bishops, awarded grants by benefactors, and hired by bosses, all the while shedding crocodile tears over our martyrs. “Danger, danger, danger!” (Zarian).

*

ARMENIAN ETIQUETTE

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

I have spent a lifetime trying to understand my fellow Armenians. After reading a line or two, a Jack S. Avanakian thinks he has me all figured out as an enemy agent. No one can combine loudmouth stupidity with ignorance and arrogance to the same degree than a phony patriot or a brainwashed dupe “whose tongue is sharper than a Turk’s yataghan.”(Zarian again.)

We have an expression: “We are all Armenians here!” meaning, “Why bother with conventional rules of etiquette when we can revert to our Ottoman ways?” Or, “Why stand on ceremony and say ‘I disagree’ when you can kick him in the groin?”

*

ON REVOLUTIONARIES

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

Our revolutionaries (so-called) are now bourgeois reactionaries whose number one concern is keeping up with the Joneses. The only revolutionary thing about them is their fiery speeches. We have another expression, “chartel, peshrel!” -- literally, “slaughter and smash!” -- that describes the daring of a speechifying revolutionary.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

#

Saturday, April 07, 2007

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

ON THE STUDY OF HISTORY

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

There are people who study history to prove themselves right and everyone else wrong, and there are others whose purpose is to learn what happened and to understand why it happened. What have we learned from our history? That we are the first nation to convert to Christianity, and the first nation in the 20th Century to be subjected to ethnic cleansing. Which proves that (one) we are better than anyone else, (two) everyone around us is either a bloodthirsty barbarian or a conniving bastard, and (three) everyone who disagrees with us is anti-Armenian.

*

Once in a while I too am called anti-Armenian. If true, then I have some bad news to impart: there are a great many of us out there. So many in fact that all resistance is futile and unconditional surrender is the only option. But I believe the true anti-Armenian is he who thinks his understanding of the past is right because he is infallible. If you are one of them, I say:" You want to understand Turks? Begin with yourself.

*

In movies, a happy ending is a happy ending. In life, it’s more likely to be an unhappy beginning.

*

Paul Eluard: “The inspiration in a poem is nothing; its power to inspire others is everything.”

*

André Malraux: “Being a king is idiotic; making a kingdom – that is what counts.”

*

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “Name a gentleman and there will be at least twenty people who will tell you he is the son of a scoundrel.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, April 08, 2007

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

EASTER SERMON

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

If Socrates, Jesus, and Gandhi had enemies who hated them unto death, who are we to say we should be immune?

*

One way to explain hatred is to say that we all have our limitations, prejudices, and perspectives that are not results of free choice but conditions beyond our control, such as place of birth and education, which may narrow our vision of the world and our understanding of our fellow men. There will always be something in a devout Christian that will reject all other religions; and there will always be something in a good Armenian that will not like Turks (and vice versa). Our choice is between believing those who legitimize hatred and those who promote understanding.

*

There are those who allow their words and actions to be driven by a political agenda, and there are also those who place their own humanity above such agendas. The trouble with nationalism, and all other ideologies and closed systems of thought, like organized religions that claim to have a monopoly on truth, is that ultimately they dehumanized man even if their original aim was the exact opposite. Jesus tried to humanize the rituals and doctrinal paraphernalia of the Old Testament; Marx exposed the sinister power of capital to dehumanize both capitalist and worker, and ultimately society as a whole; and Gandhi attempted to end the “satanic” aspects of colonialism. What happened next we know: Christianity brought forth the Inquisition, religious wars, and the Crusades; Marxism generated Lenin, Stalin, commissars, and the Gulag; and Gandhi’s non-violent campaign against the British was replaced by internecine religious massacres during which millions perished.

*

I am not suggesting here that Armenians and Turks should love one another. What I am saying is, don’t believe everything you are told by sermonizers, speechifiers, and editorializers. The chances are, anyone who has assessed himself to be la crème de la crème is more likely to be la crème de la scum.

*

Generally speaking, it is safe to assume that people who are themselves in need of understanding are in no position to understand others. On the other hand – there is always another hand when it comedy to understanding and explaining – on the other hand, manure and roses are not mutually exclusive concepts, and no one (in the words of the Mahatma) is beyond redemption. Amen.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Monday, April 09, 2007

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

LAW AND DISORDER

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

Denis Diderot: “The more reasonable a man is, the more honest he is bound to be.”

*

The difference between serial killers and tyrants is that tyrants operate within the law. It follows, the law has produced more dangerous criminals than the underworld.

*

Only the naïve, the uninformed, and the inexperienced with a single-digit IQ are astonished when managers mismanage, leaders mislead, liberators oppress, and pundits are hired to convince the people that the nation is in good hands and there is nothing to worry about.

*

All it takes for an Armenian to be an expert on Armenian history and culture is to have heard of Saroyan, to recognize the “Saber Dance,” and to know the number of Genocide victims.

*

I have yet to meet the Armenian who underestimated his intelligence or patriotism. “I know better” is the subtext of all criticism and contradiction. Socrates never said “I know better.” What he said was, “The only thing I know is that I don’t know.” Philosophy is a Greek word that means love of wisdom, and love of wisdom does not mean possession of wisdom; rather, it means search for wisdom or perpetual rejection of ignorance. It follows, he who is infatuated with his own ignorance cannot be said to be a philosopher.

*

I repeat myself? Only people who read me regularly would know that.

*

I repeat myself? If that’s a problem, it has a very easy solution.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

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

LA CRÈME DE LA SCUM

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

I am fully aware of the fact that I will never be able to convince anyone who thinks he knows better because he has more money or power. Power corrupts: only the powerful pretend to be unaware of this fact. Either that or they think corruption is one of the privileges of power.

*

To those whose favorite sport is the blame-game, I ask: If we deceive ourselves, whom do we blame?

*

Turks are not exactly a popular subject among us. If they have become so in our press it may be because they are safe to attack, and if we don’t blame all our problems on them, we may have to redirect our focus on other and more vulnerable players, such as the incompetence of our “betters,” who may well be our worst.

#

 

[Shahan Araradian]

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

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

TRUTH AND JUSTICE

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

To speak of truth and justice is to deal in shadowy theological terms and moral/judicial concepts on which even theologians, moral philosophers, and legislators disagree. A lawyer will tell you that his primary concern is not justice but evidence and interpretation of the law. A judge will tell you that courthouses are not courts of justice but courts of law. A politician will tell you his primary concern is not and has never been truth but self-interest. Hence the slogan of the British Empire: “We have neither friends nor enemies, only interests.”

*

I was brought up to believe the Turks did what they did to us because they are bloodthirsty Asiatic barbarians. Though I am no longer a child, deep inside somewhere I still feel and think so. But I also know that there is a barbarian in all of us. If only because, according to psychologists and biologists, part of our brain is crocodilian – i.e. it has the same shape as the brain of crocodiles. I also know that when a man thinks his existence is in peril, he will not stand on ceremony and behave like a civilized human being – which is why to kill in self-defense is not a crime.

*

In 1915 did the Turks believe their existence to be in peril? Or rather, was it reasonable of them to think so? What about us? Can we really plead not guilty on all counts? Were we right to believe in the verbal commitments or propaganda of the Young Turks, the Great Powers of the West, the Russians, and last but not least, in the reality or possibility of a recaptured Historic Armenia? If we were wrong on all these counts, can we really assert we played no part in digging our own graves and that our revolutionaries were not blundering fools but heroes and statesmen of vision? If smart, cosmopolitan, educated people like us were justified in being deceived by practically everyone we came into contact, is it conceivable that dumb and primitive savages fresh out from the depths of Asian steppes, were also justified in being deceived into thinking we were their mortal enemies and together with the rest of the infidel world, we threatened their very existence?

*

The aim of these questions is not to establish truth and justice but to ask: Where do we go from here? Do we advance towards mutual understanding or do we continue to hurl insults at one another? -- which is what we have been doing for nearly a century, in addition to wasting millions on lobbyists, academics, and propaganda.

*

By the way, I do not think we are smart, except perhaps when it comes to selling Oriental rugs. I also do not think Turks are dumb: those who planned and carried out the Genocide were born, raised, and educated in Europe, and some of them may even have been part-Armenian.

#

My apologies for marking on your corner. But the ideas presented here are genius. I just wanted to highlight this piece. Thanks.

 

Պատճառը մե՛նք ենք մեր վիճակին: Եւ միայն մե՛նք ենք որ կրնանք եւ կը փափաքինք աւելի պայծառ ապագայ: Ան հաւաքականութիւնը կը բարգավաճի որ խելացին է: Խելացին ալ կրնայ ջարդել: Բայց ամէնէն կարեւոր գիծը խելացիին՝ իր սխալներէն կը սորվի եւ յաչողած անձերէ կը սորվի ու կը որդեգրէ իրենց մօտեցումներն ու ձեւերը: Մնացողը, ապրո՛ղն է որ կը յաղթէ: Ինչպէս խօսքը կ'ըսէ «Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong»:

Edited April 11, 2007 by Shahan Araradian

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

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

FROM MY DIARY

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

To those who want to know how many times I have been to Armenia, I say: “Why should I travel all the way there to starve when I can just as well starve here?”

*

When a charlatan calls me a charlatan, I conclude that (a) he is smart enough to know the meaning of the word, and ( he is too dumb to know he is one.

*

We think of temptation as a negative word; but it can also be used in a positive context, as when one is tempted to be honest, to speak the truth, to do the right thing if one operates within a power structure where deception is the norm.

*

In the editorial of our local paper today I read: “A bush league is a minor, often second-rate sports organization that, like fungus, grows most successfully away from the biggest crowds and brightest light.” A good definition of our leadership.

*

On the same page, a letter to the editor suggests the only way to end wars is to let the politicians do the fighting. You may have noticed that the most ardent patriots among us happen to be speechifiers, sermonizers, and editorializers, that is to say, charlatans whose chances of going to war are nil.

*

Elsa Triolet: “Always and never – one is as long as the other.”

*

Pierre Reverdy: “Barriers are the best and surest bonds between people.”

*

Victor Hugo: “Half a friend is half a traitor.”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, April 12, 2007

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

ON TURCOCENTRISM

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

Turcocentrism is a pathological condition that should be analyzed and studied like any other psychological aberration, objectively and on a tabula rasa.

*

The central tenet of Turcocentrism is the proposition that Genocide recognition is the most important issue in our collective existence today. It follows, all our other problems, such as exodus from the Homeland, assimilation in the Diaspora (two ongoing “white massacres”), divisiveness, corruption, and incompetence within our tribal power structures, can be safely ignored or covered up on the grounds that if ignored they will go away.

*

Like most primitive societies, we tend to confer on an opinion the status of a belief system, and like all belief systems, Turcocentrism has become an orthodoxy with its own heresies (about which see below).

*

A Turcocentric newspaper is one in which every other headline has the word Turk in it.

*

Turcocentrics believe as long as Turks refuse to recognize the Genocide, we shall have no peace, no inner balance, no closure (whatever that may mean), no other concerns, and no other initiatives.

*

A Turcocentric Armenian is an “oreo” Armenian – that is, he is Armenian on the outside, Turkish on the inside. Which is why, the Armenianism of Turcocentrism is more akin to Ottomanism.

*

Turcocentric Armenians divide the community by asserting, “You are either with me or against me,” and “If you are against me, you are against the Cause,” and “If you are against the Cause you are a traitor.” On more than one occasion I have myself been accused of being a foreign agent who gets his marching orders from Ankara.

*

Turcocentric Armenians are more dependent on Turkish goodwill today than their forefathers in the Ottoman Empire were on the goodwill of the Sultan.

*

The Turcocentric Armenian has a counterpart among Turks – the Armenocentric Turk who believes there is an Armenian assassin lurking behind every bush, Kurds are Armenians in disguise, and Ocalan is an “Ermeni pij” (an Armenian bastard).

*

Like all primitive belief systems, Turcocentrism has its devils – two of them, as matter of fact: (one) denialist Turks, and (two) Armenians who dare to suggest that, very much like the kingdom of god, the kingdom of the devil is within us.

#

 

 

[ara baliozian]

Friday, April 13, 2007

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

REVOLUTIONARIES, COMMISSARS,

CHIC BOLSHEVIKS & TURCOCENTRIC PUNDITS

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

 

At the turn of the last century we had revolutionaries who thought they could do no wrong because the civilized world was on their side. During the Soviet era we had commissars in the Homeland and chic Bolsheviks in the Diaspora who believed the Soviet Union was here to stay for a thousand years and the Russians could do no wrong because they were our Big Brothers (in the non-Orwellian sense of these words). And now we have Turcocentric pundits who believe they know all there is to know about Turks. How? On what grounds? By projection, of course!

*

After projecting the worst in themselves on Turks, these charlatans believe they know all there is to know about them and they thus qualify as experts on Armeno-Turkish relations. They seem to be unaware of the fact that understanding by projection is a notoriously unreliable method of perceiving not only others but also themselves, if only because by projecting the worst in themselves they may think they have also exorcised the Turk within.

*

Understanding and exorcising by projection: If only life were that simple!

*

There are good Armenians and there are good Turks, and if it were up to them, all our differences would have been resolved many years ago to the satisfaction of both sides. But to hope that from the confrontation of two sets of charlatans something good may emerge is to believe in miracles, and I for one am no longer big on miracles.

*

A final note on our revolutionaries, commissars, chic Bolsheviks, and Jack S. Avanakians: Have you ever heard any one of them apologize for misleading the nation? Are they capable of admitting error? Last but far from least: In what way are they different from their counterparts?

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, April 14, 2007

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

ON SCIENTISTS, THEOLOGIANS,

MEN OF FAITH, AND OTHER RASCALS

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

Gods are a dime a dozen.

*

Once when Einstein said something to the effect that god did not play at dice, another physicist said: “Einstein, stop telling god what to do.”

*

Theologians are people who hate to say I don’t know, I don’t understand, and I don’t know what I am talking about.

*

Someone once wrote a book titled GOD IS AN ENGLISHMAN, which is a big lie. Everyone knows god is an Armenian.

*

I don’t know much about Islam but I know that in the eyes of the average Muslim I am no better than an infidel dog.

*

I am acquainted with several Turcocentric fascists and I know that in their eyes I am worse than an infidel dog.

*

Had I been Moses’ editor, the Decalogue would have only one commandment: “Thou shalt not allow yourself to be brainwashed.”

*

If I were a dictator, I would order theologians to stop dealing with abstractions and start dealing with facts by counting the number of victims god has claimed on earth.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, April 15, 2007

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

LOGIC AND OPTIMISM

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

Overheard:

“Optimism is good for the soul.”

“So is logic.”

*

Whenever a policy fails, it is safe to assume it was probably formulated by optimists. Examples that come readily to mind: Vietnam, Iraq, and our “revolution” in the Ottoman Empire.

*

Optimism: what is it exactly? One tentative answer would be, overestimating the positive in us and the negative in the opposition. It astonishes how often we use reason to lead us to unreason. What would be more reasonable than to think, if the great powers of the West, imperial Russia, and God Almighty Himself are on our side, there is no way we can lose. And yet, lose we did, and lose in the most tragic, catastrophic, and horrible way. And we lost not because logic was not on our side but because we underestimated the opposition. Somewhere in his 12-volume STUDY OF HISTORY, Toynbee says, one should never underestimate the will to live even of a corpse. That may not be the logic of the human brain, but it is the logic of life (or the prospect of death), which becomes visible only after the fact.

*

Rules of logic: who makes them? Who else but man, and man being fallible, his rules are bound to be full of holes. What an environment dominated by optimists needs more than anything else is not more logic but pessimism. That’s because the danger in optimism is not in optimism itself but rather in the kind of optimism that is not open to dialogue. Intolerant and dogmatic optimism ceases being logical if only because it asserts infallibility. That’s when hubris (arrogance) invited nemesis (retribution).

*

When you think right and reason are on your side and you have life by the short hair, that’s when you need to consider the possibility of being not just wrong, but catastrophically, tragically, horribly wrong.

*

If one has been catastrophically wrong in the past, is there anything that will prevent him from being catastrophically wrong again? I will let you answer that question.

*

“I know what I know and I don’t need your two cents’ worth!” The words of a loudmouth ignoramus flirting with disaster.

*

In the Confucian ANALECTS we read: “Who sins against heaven has nothing to pray to.”

*

According to Ezra Pound, Confucius did not say, “If you see a good man, emulate him; if you see a bad man, examine your own heart.” What he said instead was: “See solid talent and think of measuring up to it; see the un-solid and examine your own insides.”

*

To my Turcocentric brothers I say: “Whenever you think of Turkish criminal conduct, examine your own insides!” – which, needless to add, cannot be an option for the gutless.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Monday, April 16, 2007

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

ON A VARIETY OF THINGS

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

Fanatics take over only when moderates let them. If fanatics are guilty of actions, moderates are guilty of inaction. We are all assassins.

*

Their side believes in solutions by massacre and denial, our side believes in solutions by verbiage. After writing an anti-Turkish commentary or letter to the editor, my guess is, a Turcocentric pundit thinks he has hammered still another imaginary nail on their metaphorical coffin that contains their collective metaphysical cadaver made entirely of his wishful thinking. And as Vonnegut (may he rest in peace) used to say, “And so it goes.”

*

There was a time when editors rejected my things because they were too long; now because they are not long enough. Some day I hope to master the art of writing by measuring tape.

*

The role of god in history? He has converted countless law-abiding citizens into lynch mobs and killing machines.

*

When Confucius was asked to discipline a lazy disciple, he said: “Rotten wood cannot be carved, a wall of dung won’t hold plaster; what’s the use of reproving him?”

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

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

THE SABERS OF PARADISE

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

The best way to resist temptation is to wait patiently until you are wise enough or old enough not to have them – though old age is more reliable than wisdom.

*

And speaking of longevity: Could the Ottoman Empire become a success – if we measure success by might and longevity – without assimilating Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Assyrians, Kurds, Arabs, Iranians, Albanians, Georgians, Avars, Ingushi, Chechens, and a number of other Caucasian tribes (forty-five of them, according to some estimates) that were ruthlessly exterminated and driven out of their ancestral homes by the armies of Imperial Russia during a war that lasted several decades in the 19th Century? It is reasonable to assume that it was survivors of these Muslim tribes from the Caucasus that had settled in Anatolia that played a key role in carrying out Talaat’s policy of extermination in 1915.

*

And now, let’s consider Imperial Russia: to what extent was it Russian? Or rather, what were the contributions of non-Russians like Greeks, Jews, Georgians, Armenians, Germans, Tartars, Cossacks, and Ukrainians among others? All empires are mosaics, and it is no exaggeration to say that Armenians contributed equally to both the Ottoman and Russian Empires. Next question: what was the role of Armenians in the defeat, extermination, and exodus of the above-mentioned Caucasian tribes? Quite significant, according to SABERS OF PARADISE by Lesley Blanch, who is also the author of a biography of the French Turcophile novelist, Pierre Loti. Unlike Loti, however, Lesley Blanch was not an Armenian-hater. Neither was she anti-Russian because she also wrote several favorable books on Russia. According to her, the Russo-Caucasian war was also a religious war, which may explain the ferocity with which it was executed -- which brings to mind Voltaire’s celebrated dictum: “Since it was a religious war, there were no survivors.”

*

Anyone who wants to know more about the role of Armenians in this jihad is urged to read SABERS OF PARADISE, a fascinating book that I have read three times and plan to read again.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

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

HOW NOT TO SOLVE A PROBLEM

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

Those who are in no position to change things say we need solutions.

Those who may be in a position to change, if not things than perceptions, say, there is corruption everywhere. And those who know nothing and understand even less are brainwashed to say, first nation this, first nation that, Saroyan, Mikoyan, and Gulbenkian.

As for those who ought to know better, they say, we have to name names; speaking in terms of bosses, bishops, benefactors and similar generalities is meaningless because no one feels exposed. If you are one of them and pretend not to know what happens to those who dare to name names, allow me to enlighten you.

Once, when one of our weeklies named names, its publisher was dragged to court by one of our national benefactors, found guilty on a technicality (compliments of belly-slitting lawyers), was fined a catastrophic sum, forced to apologize, suffered a stroke, and was almost driven out of business.

An editor from Yerevan told me, after he named names, a gang of hoodlums showed up, vandalized his office, roughed up his personnel, and very kindly advised him to mind his own business.

Closer to home, when I asked one of our eminent editors why he published so many granny and massacre stories and none about our present problems, he refused to have anything to do with me.

Last but far from least, there are the poltroons who say it will take time. How much time? Ten years or from here to eternity? Their favorite answer is, about thirty or forty years, by which time they will be dead, buried, and no longer in a position to be proven wrong. These gentlemen, let’s call them time theorists, place their trust in time because that way they will be allowed to sit on their fat asses and do nothing, all the while projecting the image of concerned citizens.

You may now be in a better position to understand why Turcocentrism is the most popular subject with our speechifiers, sermonizers, editorializers, and dime-a-dozen pundits.

#

 

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, April 19, 2007

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

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION

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

We have become such compulsive players of the blame-game that it doesn’t even occur to us to ask the most important of all questions: Where did we go wrong? Were we justified in trusting the Russians, the Great Powers, and the Young Turks? Was our trust in them based on historic precedent or propaganda? Was our optimism a result of objective analysis or wishful thinking?

My purpose in raising these questions is not to find fault with our past conduct – after all, what’s done is done and cannot be undone – but to ask, how justified are we when we predict the future by saying such things as, it will take two or three generations for our bloodsuckers to see the light and behave like servants of the people? Or, how justified are we in sinking millions on our anti-Turkish campaign in the hope that, since historic Armenia was ours 600 years ago, it will be ours again in the near or distant future because a fraction of the civilized world is with us? Or again, how justified are we in placing our trust in the verbiage of our bosses, bishops, benefactors, and Turcocentric baloney artists?

Another reason I ask these questions is that, if we want to convince the Turks to behave with some degree of honesty and decency, we must first put our own house in order. If we want to educate that fraction of the so-called civilized world that is not with us, we must begin by educating ourselves. If we want others to do the right thing, the least we can do is refrain from doing the wrong thing.