as i see it - Pt. III

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, April 10, 2003

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

A good day for Uncle Sam.

A sad day for Saddamites.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Ainsi passe la gloire du monde.

God bless America.

And to quote a liberated Iraqi:

THANK YOU, MR. BUSH!

*

Some people don't have to kill themselves

to commit suicide

because their life of passive acceptance of degradation

may be said to be a slow-motion suicide.

*

When I knew less

I spoke more.

*

It is not at all unusual for a man with messianic ambitions

to behave like a hoodlum.

[ara baliozian]

Friday, April 11, 2003

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

What some of my readers need

is anger management classes.

What I need is disgust management.

*

The great warrior, the reincarnation of Saladdin,

is nowhere to be seen.

That’s the way it is with megalomaniacal bullies:

confronted with superior strength

they are exposed as paper tigers.

*

According to Arthur Koestler:

"There is nothing as sad as the death

of an illusion" – or the demise a prejudice.

*

Mirabeau on Talleyrand: "He would sell his soul for money,

and he would be right, for he would be exchanging

dung for gold."

[Sasun]

Sasun:

I agree that the need of freedom is universal

and in the nature of things i too am a tiny mouse

and as such i am paying a price for defying our bosses, bishops, benefactors and assorted charlatans.

Defiance is a good thing provided you are prepared to pay a heavy price for it. Defiance is a bad thing if you think you can get away with it without a penalty.

I am describing reality. I am not necessarily on reality's side.

Ara, thanks for the answer. I see what you mean.

 

You say that you are not necessarily on reality's side. It seems to me that if you are trying to bring about some changes then you should be on reality's side. In other words, you should practice what you preach (if that's what you mean to be on reality's side). Otherwise, no matter how realistic/truthful your writings are, they won't sound convincing to many people who actually need to change. As such your efforts will be useless (provided you have a goal of changing people). Not that nobody appreciates them, but those who appreciate do not need to be changed or changed much.

 

The other thing I don't understand in your writings is that you seem to have a belief in God, but somehow men of faith are not good. I think that you refer to men of perverted faith. If so, then why not call them such or anything else but not 'men of faith'. There are and have been many-many known or unknown men of faith that in no way fall in the description suggested in your recent writings. Gandhi is perhaps one of the biggest and best known (as a political activist) men of faith. Sometimes I think that you also are stimulated by faith rather than any plan or expectation of success. Maybe I am wrong, but that is my perception having observed your postings in the forums. Of course, faith can mean different things for different individuals.

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, April 12, 2003

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

About Jews, Israel and Zionists:

It is a mistake to assume that

history is made by honorable men.

In politics, even men of honor and integrity,

whenever on those very rare occasions

they have made an appearance,

they have been hated and assassinated.

Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King….

*

If Jews were as cunning, ruthless and powerful

as our anti-Semites portray them to be,

all anti-Semites would be very careful of what they say,

they would lead an underground existence,

and they would be afraid to come out even at night.

*

Sartre’s explanation makes sense:

anti-Semites are failures in search of a scapegoat

who think they have found a convenient target in Jews.

*

Speaking of ruthless people:

consider our charlatans:

if they could use words as yataghans,

who among us would escape being massacred?

*

Might may not always be right

but it plays a more decisive role in the advance of history.

Imagine a world run by honorable men:

and now imagine a history without empires, wars and revolutions….

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, April 13, 2003

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

An outraged Armenian from Iraq

tells me the Iraqis we see looting on TV

are not the Iraqis he knows.

"The Iraqis I know," he tells me,

"are decent men, law-abiding, civilized, considerate…."

And I reflect that

this is what an authoritarian system does to people:

it dehumanizes and brutalizes them.

A regime is not an abstraction

that is divorced from our daily existence.

A regime shapes the character of its people.

It perverts and befouls the finest virtues.

It leaves nothing untouched.

Hence the spectacle of a self-assessed genius

who speaks like an inbred moron,

an educator who sees nothing questionable

in behaving like a hooligan,

and a humanist who justifies the murder of innocent civilians

in the name of justice.

[ara baliozian]

Monday, April 14, 2003

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

William Kristol ends his eulogy to Pat Moynihan

with the words: "…[he] put friendship ahead of partisanship

and generosity ahead of ideology."

On the day we Armenians learn to do that

we shall have taken a step in the right direction.

But being a realist, I don't expect to witness such a miracle

in my own lifetime.

*

Armenian friendship: a brief suspension of hostilities.

*

During the last few days

I have heard Iraq identified as the cradle of civilization.

I know of several other countries

that make similar claims,

but I have never heard of a country

willing to identify itself as the coffin of civilization

perhaps because propaganda specializes

at manufacturing cradles, not coffins.

*

So far Arab leaders have been successful in only one enterprising:

convincing poor ignorant dupes

to become heroes and martyrs in the name of Allah.

*

The world needs a new word for leaders

who preach heroism and practice cowardice.

*

What is outrageous about some political opinions

is not their perversity but their dishonesty.

Example: American propaganda is a tissue of lies.

Arab propaganda? no such thing.

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

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

There will come a time when

overpopulation will be such that

being born will no longer be sufficient reason

to go on living.

*

Memory plays strange tricks.

About thirty years ago I read Errol Flynn’s memoirs

titled MY WICKED, WICKED WAYS

and the only sentence that I remember is:

"I love frolicking, fun, fishing, and in general

anything that starts with an f."

Ask me to quote a line from Dostoevsky or Dickens

and I draw a blank.

*

A Bolshevik who is afraid to identify himself

as a Bolshevik cannot be a brave Bolshevik;

and anti-Semite who identifies himself as an anti-Zionist

adds hypocrisy to his previous list of vices.

*

It’s not easy being an Armenian.

If you flatter you are dismissed as a brown-noser.

If you criticize you are called an Armenian-hater.

And if you speak the truth you are crucified –

all in the name of patriotism, of course.

*

"Less vinegar and more honey," I am told by readers;

and to my readers I say: "Less arsenic, please!"

*

Would Jesus be known today

if he had lived to be 89?

People love it when somebody dies for them –

heroes, martyrs, messiahs.

Which may suggest that

the average slob is also a sadomasochistic sobs

*

There is no reason why one’s nationality

should be one’s curse or source of insanity.

And yet!…

[ara baliozian]

Ara, thanks for the answer. I see what you mean.

 

You say that you are not necessarily on reality's side. It seems to me that if you are trying to bring about some changes then you should be on reality's side. In other words, you should practice what you preach (if that's what you mean to be on reality's side). Otherwise, no matter how realistic/truthful your writings are, they won't sound convincing to many people who actually need to change. As such your efforts will be useless (provided you have a goal of changing people). Not that nobody appreciates them, but those who appreciate do not need to be changed or changed much.

 

The other thing I don't understand in your writings is that you seem to have a belief in God, but somehow men of faith are not good. I think that you refer to men of perverted faith. If so, then why not call them such or anything else but not 'men of faith'. There are and have been many-many known or unknown men of faith that in no way fall in the description suggested in your recent writings. Gandhi is perhaps one of the biggest and best known (as a political activist) men of faith. Sometimes I think that you also are stimulated by faith rather than any plan or expectation of success. Maybe I am wrong, but that is my perception having observed your postings in the forums. Of course, faith can mean different things for different individuals.

 

 

the function of literature or writing is to understand reality. Which is what i have been trying to do.

If i am wrong i can be corrected. if i am right i may change some perceptions. In either case, not much harm is done.

[axel]

the function of literature or writing is to understand reality. Which is what i have been trying to do.

If i am wrong i can be corrected. if i am right i may change some perceptions

 

No, you are deliberately misleading people with your lies and sophisms. Whenever you are caught into your own contradictions (so numerous I no longer have time to point them out), you manage to change the subject of the conversation and you accuse your opponent of intolerance or pride. You are the one who is full of pride and who shows no respect for others. You accuse people in order not to be accused! People like you I know quite well. Pharisee is your name!!!

[nairi]

No, you are deliberately misleading people with your lies and sophisms.

Axel, what makes you think Ara can mislead people?

Edited April 16, 2003 by nairi

[axel]

His writings are full of lies, lies which of course have the appearance of the truth for people who do not possess enough knowledge (historical and/or philosophical) or lack analytical skills to detect the flawed arguments he uses in order to put forward his "ideas". Edited April 16, 2003 by axel

[nairi]

His writings are full of lies, lies which of course have the appearance of the truth for people who do not possess enough knowledge (historical and/or philosophical) or lack analytical skills to detect the flawed arguments he uses in order to put forward his "ideas".

 

I got that from your first post. My question was, what makes you think Ara can mislead people? As in, what makes you think that the people you described above read Ara?

 

Edit: My point is that most people I know avidly disagree with Ara and point out the same exact "flaws" that you point out. I'll go even further and say that I do not know anyone, including myself, who agrees with Ara 100% at all times. But who cares? The reason why I read Ara is not to catch him on everything I disagree with. I read him like I read any other author: for entertainment, to learn something new, and most importantly, for me, to get to know myself and improve, hopefully.

Edited April 16, 2003 by nairi

[axel]

Nairi, it is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with his "views". I do appreciate authors even though I do not agree with them on everything (even some I tend to disagree more than agree with) but there is one thing I cannot stand and that is DISHONESTY. and I cannot understand how one can possibly take the defense of a dishonest "intellectual" like Mr Baliozian.

 

Moreover, being able to exercise our own judgement is not sufficient to counter the nocivity of falsehoods being spread. You do not read him carefully enough or you would have found the answer to your question in one of his posts. I quote:

 

"It has happened to me more than once that,

even as I rejected a new idea as a blatant falsehood,

I allowed it to penetrate my subconscious

to emerge years later as a self-evident truth."

 

WHICH SHOWS HE KNOWS QUITE WELL WHAT HE IS DOING!

DON'T TRY TO FIND ANY EXCUSE FOR HIS BEHAVIOUR!!!!! THERE ARE NONE.

[nairi]

Nairi, it is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with his "views". I do appreciate authors even though I do not agree with them on everything (even some I tend to disagree more than agree with) but there is one thing I cannot stand and that is DISHONESTY.

Another reason why I hate myself more than anyone... I can't help but being dishonest for the simple reason that I don't know myself. This doesn't mean that I'm not trying to get to know myself; it just means that it's much harder than I could have ever anticipated. I sometimes even wonder if I'll ever reach the ultimate point of honesty. Meanwhile, not only is my view on myself twisted, my view on the world is also false.

 

Moreover, being able to exercise our own judgement is not sufficient to counter the nocivity of falsehoods being spread.

 

In the light of what I said above, of course our own judgement isn't enough, simply because it is dishonest and false in itself. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You do not read him carefully enough or you would have found the answer to your question in one of his posts. I quote:

 

"It has happened to me more than once that,

even as I rejected a new idea as a blatant falsehood,

I allowed it to penetrate my subconscious

to emerge years later as a self-evident truth."

 

I don't see how this answers my question.

 

WHICH SHOWS HE KNOWS QUITE WELL WHAT HE IS DOING!

DON'T TRY TO FIND ANY EXCUSE FOR HIS BEHAVIOUR!!!!! THERE ARE NONE.

 

How about the fact that he's an Armenian

[Sasun]

"It has happened to me more than once that,

even as I rejected a new idea as a blatant falsehood,

I allowed it to penetrate my subconscious

to emerge years later as a self-evident truth."

If he says this, doesn't it mean he is trying to be honest?

[axel]

Nairi,

 

Main Entry: dis·hon·est

Pronunciation: (")di-'sä-n&st also -'zä-

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deshoneste, from des- dis- + honeste honest

Date: 14th century

1 obsolete : SHAMEFUL, UNCHASTE

2 : characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE

- dis·hon·est·ly adverb

synonyms DISHONEST, DECEITFUL, MENDACIOUS, UNTRUTHFUL mean unworthy of trust or belief. DISHONEST implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud . DECEITFUL usually implies an intent to mislead and commonly suggests a false appearance or double-dealing . MENDACIOUS may suggest bland or even harmlessly mischievous deceit and when used of people often suggests a habit of telling untruths . UNTRUTHFUL stresses a discrepancy between what is said and fact or reality .

 

In the light of this definition, your sentence "I can't help but being dishonest for the simple reason that I don't know myself." makes no sense. If you do not know yourself then you just cannot cheat.

 

How about the fact that he's an Armenian

 

I didn't know you were that chauvinistic. Has Pim Fortuyn's ideology penetrated your subconscious so as to reemerge as a self-evident truth?

 

If he says this, doesn't it mean he is trying to be honest?

 

Trying to be honest?! This one takes the cake. ROFLMAO. it really belongs in the humor section. But more seriously isn't it rather that he states some truths in order to cover up bigger lies?

[axel]

Nairi jan,

 

I don't see how this answers my question.

 

Well if you don't, I will have to revise my judgment as to your being a misunderstood genius. This must have been a dishonest judgement, false in itself.

 

By the way, if you believe your own judgment to be false in itself, you should avoid sharing it, don't you think? Actually I would say that if you believe your judgement to be dishonest and false, then I myself should consider your post as dishonest and false and your stating you believe your judgment to be dishonest and false as dishonest and false which seems to amount to some kind of contradiction IMHO. Have you read Kafka?

[Sasun]

Axel, you can make a case that Ara Baliozian is not right on some issues or is ignorant, or whatever, but to say that he is lieing is a whole different thing. Theoretically speaking, not knowing the truth and saying it is not a lie itself although it is false.

[nairi]

Nairi,

 

In the light of this definition, your sentence "I can't help but being dishonest for the simple reason that I don't know myself." makes no sense. If you do not know yourself then you just cannot cheat.

If you say so.

 

How about the fact that he's an Armenian

 

I didn't know you were that chauvinistic. Has Pim Fortuyn's ideology penetrated your subconscious so as to reemerge as a self-evident truth?

 

Uhm, yeah. Seems like you're understanding what I'm trying to say very well.

 

I don't see how this answers my question.

 

Well if you don't, I will have to revise my judgment as to your being a misunderstood genius. This must have been a dishonest judgement, false in itself.

 

Please do revise your judgement! I don't remember trying to convince you to believe that!

 

By the way, if you believe your own judgment to be false in itself, you should avoid sharing it, don't you think?

 

We are naturally social beings (even Armenians with their anti-social manners), so you can't stop people from willing to communicate no matter how false their judgement is.

 

Actually I would say that if you believe your judgement to be dishonest and false, then I myself should consider your post as dishonest and false and your stating you believe your judgment to be dishonest and false as dishonest and false which seems to amount to some kind of contradiction IMHO.

 

That's right.

 

Have you read Kafka?

 

Not much.

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

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

Be very careful of what you say:

you may end up believing it.

*

The only decent thing about anti-Semites

is their fear of being identified as anti-Semites.

*

To those who see themselves as members of an elite,

I say: we don't have an elite and most of our past elites

or aristocracy or ruling class were traitors

who collaborated with the enemy

or losers who rewrote history to cover up their blunders.

*

Reagan on hippies: "A hippie is someone

who looks like Tarzan,

walks like Jane,

and smells like Cheeta."

*

Lao Tzu: "To be shameless and arrogant

is to be dead."

*

Our options: we either choose the Ottoman way

or the civilized way, and so far we have made no effort

to define, let alone to abandon, Ottomanism.

*

When a Turk investigates Turkish history,

when an Armenian investigates Armenian history,

and when a partisan investigates his own party,

the result will be the same: not guilty.

*

To suffer fools: easy.

To suffer fools who think they are smart: can't be done.

To suffer Armenian fools who think

they are smarter than you: impossible!

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, April 17, 2003

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

Speaking of innocent victims or collateral damage:

all human enterprises have them:

medicine, travel, the consumption of alcohol,

cigarettes, marriage and divorce…and last but far from least,

Armenian discussion forums.

*

I became pro-American on the day

I was exposed to anti-Americanism

in defense of Stalinism and Saddamism.

Likewise, I became pro-Israel

after being exposed to anti-Zionism

in the name of mullahs and suicidal fanatic dupes.

*

As for anti-Semitism, that 2000 year old grudge,

allow me to quote Jean Rostand:

"The persistence of an opinion proves nothing in its favor.

Astrologers still exist."

[Sasun]

the function of literature or writing is to understand reality. Which is what i have been trying to do.

 

I was thinking about this, maybe it is my personal desire that the function of an Armenian writer was more than that. It seems to me that to understand reality is the fucntion of pretty much everyone and everything. One could argue that the function of forum participants is also to understand reality. Or the function of newspapers is to understand the reality. Or the function of a crying baby is to understand the reality. Or the function of a computer is to understand the reality. Or the function of a flower is to understand the reality. So why be a writer?

 

If i am wrong i can be corrected. if i am right i may change some perceptions. In either case, not much harm is done.

 

Yes, indeed there is no harm done. But - are you right or wrong?

[axel]

How about the fact that he's an Armenian

 

 

 

I didn't know you were that chauvinistic. Has Pim Fortuyn's ideology penetrated your subconscious so as to reemerge as a self-evident truth?

 

 

 

Uhm, yeah. Seems like you're understanding what I'm trying to say very well.

 

Just kidding. Him being an armenian is no excuse.

 

 

By the way, if you believe your own judgment to be false in itself, you should avoid sharing it, don't you think?

 

 

We are naturally social beings (even Armenians with their anti-social manners), so you can't stop people from willing to communicate no matter how false their judgement is.

 

I think you got me wrong, I didn't say you should avoid sharing your judgment because (I believe) it is false. That would be pretty arrogant from me. I said, if you believe your own judgment to be false (personally), then don't share it. This is quite different.

 

Sasun, I don't think he is ignorant nor do I think he is dumb.

 

 

 

Likewise, I became pro-Israel

after being exposed to anti-Zionism

in the name of mullahs and suicidal fanatic dupes.

 

After being exposed to mullahs and "suicidal fanatic dupes", Mr Baliozian understood the legitimacy of Israel's crimes against humanity.

 

"Enthusiasm has two faces in general, sacrifice of oneself for a passionately embraced idea, this is Faith, sacrifice of others for this idea, that is fanatism" (Augustin Cochin)

 

So where is fanatism, among the desperate and humiliated palestinians who commit suicide bombings (including teenage girls) or among the zionist leaders who kill and destroy in the name of Eretz Israel, starting with their own people?

 

Are they willing to sacrifice themselves for democracy, the Perles and the Wolfowitz, the Cheneys and the Rumsfelds? I do have a doubt. But they are quite good at sending B52s bomb a defenceless country back to the Middle Ages under the pretext of removing a regime whose atrocities they knowingly supported for years when it matched their strategical interests.

 

Cowards kneel in front of the powerful and loathe the weak. Mr Baliozan fits quite well this definition. It is so easy to go and spit on the remains of Hitler and Stalin now that they are dead. But I would like Mr Baliozian to spit on today's Hitlers and Stalins. This would give him more credibility. And he should remember one thing too. A christian doesn't justify an atrocity by another atrocity. The "eye for an eye" mentality he has adopted does not belong to christian ethics.

[nairi]

the function of literature or writing is to understand reality.

Ara, what exactly do you mean by this and where did you get it from?

 

I said, if you believe your own judgment to be false (personally), then don't share it.

 

I understood this from your post the first time.

[axel]

I said, if you believe your own judgment to be false (personally), then don't share it.

 

 

I understood this from your post the first time.

 

I am glad you did but then you have to admit that what you wrote, namely,

 

"you can't stop people from willing to communicate no matter how false their judgement is. "

 

doesn't follow from what I said as your previous post suggested.