as i see it - Pt. III

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, August 29, 2004

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

ON TRIBALISM.

GUT REACTIONS.

ARTICLES OF FAITH.

TABLE MANNERS.

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

One way to explain our tribalism is to say that our bosses, bishops, and benefactors see the nation as an extension of themselves and not the other way around. It’s the tail-wagging-the-dog routine. Unlike Louis XIV, they don’t even feel the need to say “L’etat c’est moi,” (I am the state) because they assume it must be obvious to everyone with the minimum of sense.

*

There are some disagreements that come straight from the gut. And when gut meets brain, brain is bound to lose. I speak from experience. Once upon a time I too had gut reactions. I still do, but when I do I use my brain to cross-examine and x-ray my gut, and sure enough, I invariably detect an infection in the form of an ingrained childhood prejudice or a youthful misconception.

*

When you believe in a propaganda line it ceases being propaganda and is automatically elevated to the status of an article of faith, which also means that anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be an infidel dog.

*

A dupe is one who believes his propaganda line is Scripture and someone else’s religion is verbal trash. That’s one reason why dialogue is un-Armenian.

*

 

Other possible reasons, according to Shant Avedissian:

“Our instinct for survival drives us to gobble up food

but to scorn table manners;

to get married and establish families but to neglect love;

to accumulate wealth but not to share it;

to erect churches but to be indifferent to matters of faith;

to build cultural centers but to have no interest in culture;

to construct schools in order to teach Armenian to our children but to despise the true meaning of words.

In short, we have mastered the art of survival but not the art of living….”

*

On second thought, have we really mastered the art of survival when most of us, and very probably the best and the brightest, have not survived?

*

Have we really mastered the art of survival if we are, even as I write, witnessing two ongoing genocides: exodus from the Homeland and Assimilation in the Diaspora.

*

When asked about the exodus, an Armenian political leader is quoted as having said: “If they want to leave the Homeland, let them!” That’s what I call an answer worthy of a Talaat. With public servants like that, who needs sultans and Stalinists?

#

[ara baliozian]

They don't know what they're missing.

 

I bet they listen to Richard Strauss though.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

i have never been to israel -- i don't know. But R. Strauss was not exactly a Nazi; he was too politically indifferent to be one...and too old and lazy to emigrate to america....

[ara baliozian]

Monday, August 30, 2004

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

WHY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE.

TWO QUESTIONS.

THE UGLY ARMENIAN.

QUEEN MAMIKONIAN.

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

Bad things happen to good people.

Everyone knows that.

And smart people do dumb things.

Everyone knows that too.

What is less well known is that there may be secret and underground connections between these two incongruities.

*

Why do smart people do dumb things?

Because they are never as smart as they think they are.

*

I have received nasty e-mails from both Turks and Armenians, and it is astonishing how similar in style, tone, and vocabulary they are. So similar in fact that they might as well have been written by the same person or identical twins.

*

Nobody is perfect, of course. So what if smart people sometimes do dumb things, and dumb people dumber things? That’s not a tragedy. Our tragedy or the tragedy of our condition is that we have been and continue to be at their mercy.

*

Why is it that in their efforts to prove they are smarter and better, some Armenians see nothing inconsistent in writing like dumb Turks? Another question: Is it conceivable that the cradle of civilization has spawned gravediggers of civilized discourse?

*

Behind every alienated Armenian there is an ugly Armenian who thinks, since he is smarter and better, he can do no wrong and self-criticism is self-hatred and therefore unpatriotic.

*

If being honest means admitting a major blunder and thus committing political suicide, an ambitious leader will invariably choose survival at all cost and forever after brag about his personal integrity.

*

Who can trust a politician who says “I can do no wrong and I am therefore beyond criticism”? And yet!

*

The only reason some politicians admit minor miscalculations is to cover up major blunders.

*

Only a certified dupe will say, “All politicians lie except ours.” And only a fanatic will say, “My party is always right and the opposition always wrong.”

*

Sometimes when two Armenians disagree, I cannot help wondering: Is the disagreement between two Armenians or is it between an Armenian and a Turk?

*

Sophie Audouin Mamikonian on Armenians (in a recent issue of PARIS-MATCH): “They don’t have enough to eat but they want to crown me Queen of Armenia. When I refused to mount on the throne, these monarchists threatened to abduct my children. We were placed under police protection.”

#

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

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

CLICHÉS AND SLOGANS.

THE BLISS OF IGNORANCE.

THE SHEEP AND THE WOLVES.

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

Knowledge is power? What nonsense! No one can tell me the Ottoman Empire, one of the mightiest empires in the history of mankind that lasted six centuries, was based on knowledge.

*

Unmask a slogan or a cliché and you may see more truth in its contradiction. One way to explain the popularity of slogans or clichés is to say that they satisfy a deep-seated need in all of us to simplify the fathomless complexities of life in our favor.

*

If you think, “ignorance is bliss,” remember the last time you were manipulated by someone who knew you did not know what he knew.

*

“Power corrupts,” we are told. What we are not told is that lack of power or subservience corrupts even more. Are we as a people today more or less corrupt than Turks and Russians, our former masters?

*

A reader, who subscribes to the slogan “The only good Turk is a dead Turk,” demands to know: “If good Turks existed, why didn’t they stop the genocide?” It doesn’t even occur to him to ask, “Where were our revolutionaries – the future leaders of our historic homeland? Why is it that they had a Plan B for themselves but not for the people? We have all heard about our heroes and martyrs and we know the number of our martyrs, but does anyone know the number of our heroes? – or perhaps there were so many of them that no one bothered to count them. If there were many and they were our shepherds, why did they abandon the sheep to the wolves?

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

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

AMERICA AND THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE.

RAFFI, ZOHRAB AND SIAMANTO.

THE WISDOM OF THE MASSES.

TWO WARNINGS.

THE MAMIKONIAN PALACE.

SLOBO'S DEFENSE.

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

It is not enough being right; one must also be right at the right time and place.

*

Trying to convince Americans to recognize our genocide is like arguing against capital punishment in a hangman's house.

*

Long before the massacres, Raffi said the Ottoman Empire was no place for Armenians because Turks had no respect for human life. He was ignored.

*

Shortly before the Genocide, Krikor Zohrab urged Armenians to get out of Turkey because, he explained, "this time around they will exterminate all of us." He too was ignored. "Zohrab effendi is exaggerating," they said.

*

When Roupen Sevag's German fiancée urged him to leave Istanbul because, she said, the Turks were nasty folk, Sevag replied: "You don't know these people. I do. Deep down they are nice. Take my word for it. I know what I am saying. I have lived with them all my life." And what was bound to happen, happened. Zohrab, Sevag and Siamanto (who couldn't get used to life in America and returned to Istanbul) were among the first victims of the Genocide.

*

Today, no one is urging Armenians to leave Armenia but they are leaving anyway…by the million. I am told everyone wants to leave - everyone except politicians and policemen. Unhappy is the land whose only happy inhabitants are legislators and law enforcers.

*

An English sociologist published a book recently in which he proves crowds are wiser than individuals. There may be some truth in it. "Two heads," they say, "is better than one."

*

When I was young, my elders misled me; and now that I am old, the young misunderstand me.

*

Everything I write should come with two warnings: "Not for children," and "I could be wrong." On the day I say or imply I can't be wrong, you can be sure of one thing: you are dealing with a morally and intellectually bankrupt charlatan.

*

Sophie Mamikonian: "The Armenian monarchists showed me a picture of my palace in Armenia: the wall of a ruin with three crows on top."

*

Accused of genocide, Slobodan Milosevic is pleading not guilty on the grounds that "Croatia, the United States, Europe, Muslim fundamentalists and terrorists, the Vatican…in short, the international community" had conspired to destroy Yugoslavia, and all his actions had been in defense of the territorial integrity of his homeland.

Sounds familiar?

#

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, September 02, 2004

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

MIKOYAN'S ROLE IN THE STALINIST PURGES.

TOLSTOY, DOSTOEVSKY AND SHAKESPEARE.

GREGORIAN CHANT.

WHAT IS ARMENIANISM?

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

A number of Sovietologists have identified Anastas Mikoyan as the main architect of the Stalinist purges in Armenia. If he was, he was a reluctant one, writes Simon Montefiore. In his recently published book, STALIN: THE COURT OF THE RED TSAR, based on interviews with the children of survivors, post-Soviet studies, and newly opened archives, he writes that Stalin chose Mikoyan for that grim task to test his loyalty. “In late 1937,” we read here, “Stalin tested Mikoyan’s commitment by dispatching him to Armenia with a list of three hundred victims to be arrested. Mikoyan signed it but he crossed off one friend. The man was arrested anyway.”

*

While in Siberia, Dostoevsky read some stories by a writer who signed himself “L.T.” Dostoevsky liked the stories but he said, “I believe he will write very little,” adding, “but perhaps I am wrong.” He sure was! “L.T.” stood for Leo Tolstoy, one of the most prolific writers of all time.

*

Though contemporaries, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky avoided each other. But the last book Tolstoy read shortly before his death was Dostoevsky”s BROTHERS KARAMAZOV, perhaps because his home situation, from which he was running away, was more Dostoevskian than Tolstoyan.

*

Tolstoy and Dostoevsky shared one thing in common: they didn’t much care for Shakespeare.

*

Readers sometimes complain that I don’t always answer questions. The truth is everything I write is an answer to a specific question, even when the questioner is anonymous and even when the question is disguised verbal vandalism and hooliganism. Case in point: on a number of occasions I have been asked if my mother was a concubine in a Turkish harem. My mother became an orphan at the age of one and was brought up by French Catholic nuns in Lebanon. Instead of lullabies she sang Gregorian chant to me, which to this day is my favorite kind of music – music in its purest form: simple, accessible, melodic, incandescent, with none of the technical fireworks of J.S.Bach or the rhetoric of Beethoven.

*

Whenever I read an ugly e-mail from an Armenian, I cannot help wondering: what if in our case the concept of survival of the fittest should be replaced with the concept of survival of the nastiest?

*

There are open minds and closed minds, but when an Armenian decides to close his mind, he locks it with seven rusty keys.

*

Why is it that some Armenians use the massacres as a license to do to civilized discourse what the Turks did to us? And more often than not, they are the very same Armenians who demand our unconditional love on grounds of Armenianism.

*

Writes Denis Donikian: “At one time or another we have all been victims of Armenianism.” Perhaps because no one has yet defined what Armenianism is and every Armenian thinks his own brand is the only true one.

#

[ara baliozian]

Friday, September 03, 2004

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

BAYROU ON TURKS.

MONTEFIORE ON MIKOYAN.

AXIOMS.

MEMO TO MY CRITICS.

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

Francois Bayrou, identified as the President of the UDF, in a recent interview published in LE POINT (August 5, 2004): “Turkey’s geography, history, and sociology are not European. Its anthropology is not the same as ours. During a recent conversation with Turkish Prime Minister Nayyip Erdogan, he said: ‘For us, Europe must be a place where different civilizations meet and coexist,” thus conceding that our civilizations are indeed different. In order to qualify as a member of the European Union, Turkey must meet certain criteria. Even the recognition of the Armenian genocide, an indispensable condition in our eyes, is open to negotiation and compromise. That’s not the real stumbling bloc. The real stumbling bloc is the question: Is Turkey’s membership compatible with the political unity of Europe? My answer is, No.”

*

Simon Montefiore on Anastas Mikoyan: “This Armenian who had studied for the priesthood like Stalin himself, was slim, circumspect, wily and industrious, with black hair, moustache and flashing eyes, a broken aquiline nose and a taste for immaculate clothes that, even when clad in his usual tunic and boots, lent him the air of a lithe dandy. Highly intelligent with the driest of wits, he had a gift for languages, understanding English, and, in 1931, he taught himself German by translating DAS KAPITAL.” (And to think that most people can’t understand DAS KAPITAL even when they read it in their mother tongue).

*

We know what we think and how we feel. It is only by knowing what others think and feel that we may acquire a better understanding of our fellow men, and by extension, of the world in which we live – that is to say, reality.

*

Can we really understand ourselves if we don’t understand others? And if we don’t understand others, what can we really understand?

*

Understanding of reality is a seamless web. Partial understanding might as well be misunderstanding, and action based on misunderstanding is bound to fail.

*

Memo to my anonymous critics: “The merit of a criticism is diminished when the critic is too afraid to identify himself.”

#

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, September 04, 2004

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

THE ORIGIN OF WISDOM.

SOCRATES AND ERASMUS.

PERVERTED PATRIOTISM.

ARMENIAN-HATERS.

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

All wisdom begins with the realization that what we know is only a very small fraction of knowledge, and very often so small that it would be more accurate to admit, like Socrates, that all we know for certain is that we don’t know.

*

And speaking of Socrates: there are people who reject ideas simply because they are new ideas. Whenever in history great men, like Socrates, have been persecuted, you can be sure of one thing: the persecution was organized by such people, namely, the scum of the earth who, in the words of Erasmus, prefer “the smell of their excrement,” simply because they are familiar with it.

*

Where hooligans are allowed to hijack the word “patriotism,” love of country becomes hatred of fellow countrymen.

*

To those who at one time or another have accused me of being an Armenian-hater, I say: You have no idea what you are saying. A real Armenian-hater is one who hates Turks not because they massacred us, but because they didn’t do a more thorough job; and I happen to be personally acquainted with such an Armenian, and he happens to be a genuine, bona fide, dyed-in-the wool born-again Christian whose every other line is a quote from the Bible. And he feels as he does because he is convinced Armenians are evil and the Turks massacred them because they were following orders from God – not their Allah, be it noted, but our God who can do no wrong. And if you were to say, I should be ashamed to admit that I have such friends, I will reply: I have made it my business to understand all kinds of Armenians and not just a fraction of them.

#

[Vigil]

Ara, Armenians are a gullible group of people that can be conquered with a song and dance routine. You have Armenians that are more willing to accept the company of anyone else besides an Armenian. They are so jaded and devoid of any nationalism to the point of castrating any Armenian that speaks for Armenia. Edited September 4, 2004 by Vigil

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, September 05, 2004

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

THE TRIUMPH OF THE BLIND.

UNLEARNING FROM HISTORY.

A GENERATION OF TERRORISTS.

A ROUTINE OCCURRENCE

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

There is a type of Armenian who will attack you if he suspects you are ahead of him. He resents being number two where he thought to be number one. The one-eyed, we are told, is king in the land of the blind. But if the blind are Armenian, the one-eyed will be blinded, and sometimes beheaded, too.

*

In the Homeland they silenced Charents, Bakounts, and Zabel Yessayan. In the Diaspora they silenced Shahnour, Zarian, and Massikian. In the Republican of the Blind, no one is qualified to be one-eyed because seeing is a capital offense.

*

Adam Gopnik in a recent issue of the NEW YORKER: “The First World War teaches that territorial compromise is better than full-scale war, that an ‘honor-bound’ allegiance of the great powers to small nations is a recipe for mass killing, and that it is crazy to let the blind mechanism of armies and alliances trump common sense.”

*

Two questions: Has mankind learned any of these lessons? Is man capable of learning from history?

*

If the Azeris of Karabagh, who now live in refugee camps and see us as their Israelis and identify themselves with Palestinians, are they not breeding a generation of future terrorists?

*

When a good Armenian hears a fellow Armenian saying “Armenians are evil,” he examines his own heart. When a bad Armenian hears it, he says, “The man is a lunatic.”

*

Whenever Armenians get together and start talking about their favorite subject, namely, fellow Armenians, they almost always reach the same conclusion: “Mart bidi ch’ellank!” freely translated: “We will never acquire the status of human beings.”

*

There are those who read me only to assert their moral and intellectual superiority. Which raises the question: “Why would anyone waste his time by reading an inferior scribbler?”

*

None of us likes to be criticized, but in a democracy, even the mightiest has no choice but to take it. Not so in a fascist environment, where, by silencing their critics, those in power think they become infallible and are therefore beyond criticism. Therein lies the seed of their own destruction.

#

[ara baliozian]

Monday, September 06, 2004

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

BELIEF SYSTEMS.

REALITY AND ITS DEMANDS.

MEMO TO MYSELF.

MY FAVORITE Q/A.

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

With most people, it seems, if you repeat something long enough, they will end up believing it. This is the principle on which all organized religions and ideologies are based. The only reason most Christians are Christians is that they were born and raised in a predominantly Christian country. The same applies to Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists. This suggests a number of things, among them:

(a) homo sapiens hates to think for himself and prefers someone else to do his thinking for him; ( he is eminently brainwashable; © he cannot discriminate education from indoctrination; (d) he is easily satisfied with what he knows even when what he knows happens to be a palpable lie; and (e) he has 20/20 vision when it comes to the lies of the opposition and might as well be blind to his own.

*

On the day mankind becomes aware of these things, we may have a far better chance to live in a world without intolerance and hatred, as well as war and massacre.

*

How to achieve this goal? The answer is simple as well as obvious: educate people to question and doubt the fundamental assumptions of their belief systems, especially if these belief systems were taught to them when they were children.

*

Reality is like death and taxes: you can neither avoid it nor run away from it. On the contrary: the faster you run away from it, the harder it will hit you.

*

According to an old saying: “If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans.” So much for those who believe God is on their side.

*

Memo to myself: “Don’t rush things. Take it easy. Because if you don’t, you may end up so far ahead of your contemporaries that they may never be able to catch up with you.”

*

The most unforgettable question/answer I have heard in a film:

“Who the hell do you think you are?”

“You are full of sh**! – that’s who I am.”

#

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

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

ON LIARS AND FRAUDS.

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE.

TERRORISTS OR FREEDOM FIGHTERS?

ANATOMY OF PARTISAN THINKING.

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

There is a hidden question mark in all my assertions about Armenians, and, more often than not, the question is: “If suffering ennobles, why have we fallen so low?”

*

It is not easy being a liar – to project a positive image and to harbor negative sentiments and thoughts. If our words don’t betray us, our body language will, and our body language is visible to others but not to ourselves.

*

If you think Chechens who kill Russian children are terrorists and Palestinians who kill Jewish children are freedom-fighters, then I assume your favorite book is MEIN KAMPF. And if you were to say, “How can it be my favorite book if I haven’t even read it?” I say: “Take my word for it, my friend. It will be your favorite book after you read it.”

*

If you think quoting a Jewish writer on an Armenian discussion forum is wrong, am I to assume if I were to quote Goebbels you would have no objections?

*

Scratch an Armenian reader and expose a control-freak commissar of culture who will want to check and double-check not only what you write but also what you read, quote, think, and feel.

*

To those who don’t like Jews because Jews, they say, have been screwing the world, I say: The world has been screwing them since the time of the Pharaohs. It’s high time they did some screwing of their own – assuming, of course, you are right and that’s what they have been doing.

*

You have made it as a writer on the day you discover that even those who hate you, read you.

*

I would not be surprised in the least if some Armenians, who say they don’t hate Jews, spend vast sums of money on collecting Nazi memorabilia.

*

Nothing is what it seems. The world is full of frauds that pretend to be better than they are. Because I forget this, I am repeatedly disappointed in my fellow Armenians.

*

If you support one side against the other, you make an a priori decision to emphasize only the negative in the opposition. In other words, you think as if half of your brain were frozen. Which is why single-minded fanatics behave as if they were lobotomized.

#

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, September 05, 2004

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

THE TRIUMPH OF THE BLIND.

UNLEARNING FROM HISTORY.

A GENERATION OF TERRORISTS.

A ROUTINE OCCURRENCE

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

There is a type of Armenian who will attack you if he suspects you are ahead of him. He resents being number two where he thought to be number one. The one-eyed, we are told, is king in the land of the blind. But if the blind are Armenian, the one-eyed will be blinded, and sometimes beheaded, too.

*

In the Homeland they silenced Charents, Bakounts, and Zabel Yessayan. In the Diaspora they silenced Shahnour, Zarian, and Massikian. In the Republic of the Blind, no one is qualified to be one-eyed because seeing is a capital offense.

*

Adam Gopnik in a recent issue of the NEW YORKER: "The First World War teaches that territorial compromise is better than full-scale war, that an 'honor-bound' allegiance of the great powers to small nations is a recipe for mass killing, and that it is crazy to let the blind mechanism of armies and alliances trump common sense."

*

Two questions: Has mankind learned any of these lessons? Is man capable of learning from history?

*

If the Azeris of Karabagh, who now live in refugee camps and see us as their Israelis and identify themselves with Palestinians, are they not breeding a generation of future terrorists?

*

When a good Armenian hears a fellow Armenian saying "Armenians are evil," he examines his own heart. When a bad Armenian hears it, he says, "The man is a lunatic."

*

Whenever Armenians get together and start talking about their favorite subject, namely, fellow Armenians, they almost always reach the same conclusion: "Mart bidi ch'ellank!" freely translated: "We will never acquire the status of human beings."

*

There are those who read me only to assert their moral and intellectual superiority. Which raises the question: "Why would anyone waste his time reading an inferior scribbler?"

*

None of us likes to be criticized, but in a democracy, even the mightiest has no choice but to take it. Not so in a fascist environment, where, by silencing their critics, those in power think they become infallible and are therefore beyond criticism. Therein lies the seed of their own destruction.

#

Monday, September 06, 2004

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

BELIEF SYSTEMS.

REALITY AND ITS DEMANDS.

MEMO TO MYSELF.

MY FAVORITE Q/A.

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

With most people, it seems, if you repeat something long enough, they will end up believing it. This is the principle on which all organized religions and ideologies are based. The only reason most Christians are Christians is that they were born and raised in a predominantly Christian country. The same applies to Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists. This suggests a number of things, among them:

(a) homo sapiens hates to think for himself and prefers someone else to do his thinking for him; ( he is eminently brainwashable; © he cannot discriminate education from indoctrination; (d) he is easily satisfied with what he knows even when what he knows happens to be a palpable lie; and (e) he has 20/20 vision when it comes to the lies of the opposition and might as well be blind to his own.

*

On the day mankind becomes aware of these things, we may have a far better chance to live in a world without intolerance and hatred, as well as war and massacre.

*

How to achieve this goal? The answer is simple as well as obvious: educate people to question and doubt the fundamental assumptions of their belief systems, especially if these belief systems were taught to them when they were children.

*

Reality is like death and taxes: you can neither avoid it nor run away from it. On the contrary: the faster you run away from it, the harder it will hit you.

*

According to an old saying: "If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans." So much for those who believe God is on their side.

*

Memo to myself: "Don't rush things. Take it easy. Because if you don't, you may end up so far ahead of your contemporaries that they may never be able to catch up with you."

*

The most unforgettable question/answer I have heard in a film:

"Who the hell do you think you are?"

"You are full of sh**! - that's who I am."

#

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

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

ON LIARS AND FRAUDS.

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE.

TERRORISTS OR FREEDOM FIGHTERS?

ANATOMY OF PARTISAN THINKING.

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

There is a hidden question mark in all my assertions about Armenians, and, more often than not, the question is: "If suffering ennobles, why have we fallen so low?"

*

It is not easy being a liar - to project a positive image and to harbor negative sentiments and thoughts. If our words don't betray us, our body language will, and our body language is visible to others but not to ourselves.

*

If you think Chechens who kill Russian children are terrorists and Palestinian who kill Jewish children are freedom-fighters, then I assume your favorite book is MEIN KAMPF. And if you were to say, "How can it be my favorite book if I haven't even read it?" I say: "Take my word for it, my friend. It will be your favorite book after you read it."

*

If you think quoting a Jewish writer on an Armenian discussion forum is wrong, am I to assume if I were to quote Goebbels you would have no objections?

*

Scratch an Armenian reader and expose a control-freak commissar of culture who will want to check and double-check not only what you write but also what you read, quote, think, and feel.

*

To those who don't like Jews because Jews, they say, have been screwing the world, I say: The world has been screwing them since the time of the Pharaohs. It's high time they did some screwing of their own - assuming, of course, you are right and that's what they have been doing.

*

You have made it as a writer on the day you discover that even those who hate you, read you.

*

I would not be surprised in the least if some Armenians, who say they don't hate Jews, spend vast sums of money on collecting Nazi memorabilia.

*

Nothing is what it seems. The world is full of frauds that pretend to be better than they are. Because I forget this, I am repeatedly disappointed in my fellow Armenians.

*

If you support one side against the other, you make an a priori decision to emphasize only the negative in the opposition. In other words, you think as if half of your brain were frozen. Which is why single-minded fanatics behave as if they were lobotomized.

#

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

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

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.

WHO IS CAIN?

FROM PALACES TO CRAP.

VERBAL SOLUTIONS AND PIZZAS

WITH MUSHROOMS AND ANCHOVIES.

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

In 1957 Bertrand Russell published a book titled WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, which contains quotations from the Old Testament that legitimize prejudice, racism, and massacre - and massacre not only of women and children but also cattle.

We now have two recent books titled WHY I AM NOT A MUSLIM by Ibn Warraq and WHY I AM NOT A HINDU by Ramandra Nath.

In the first we read: "As soon as I was able to think for myself, I discarded all the religious dogmas that had been foisted on me. I now consider myself a secular humanist who believes that all religions are sick men's dreams, false - demonstrably false - and pernicious."

In the second: "Though I agree with Buddhism in its rejection of god, soul, infallibility of the Vedas, still I am not a Hindu even in this broad sense of the term Hindu, because as a rationalist and humanist, I reject all religions."

If the world is saved it will not be by ayatollahs, mullahs, bishops, popes, televangelists and rabbis but by enlightened men like Bertrand Russell, Ibn Warraq and Ramandra Nath, who refuse to divide their fellow men into believers and infidel dogs.

*

When I went into this business, I made a solemn promise to myself never to lose my temper, to answer all criticisms and questions, to ignore all insults, and to think of my critics not as my enemies but as my brothers. I kept this promise until I realized that one of the worst things that can happen to a man is to have a brother like Cain. I am not saying or implying that my critics are a bunch of Cains; rather, that they assign to me the role of Cain and to themselves that of Abel.

*

The Bible tells us to love our neighbor. It does not tell us to love him only if he agrees with everything we say no matter how uninformed, narrow-minded, and unchristian.

*

Goethe once said that every young writer thinks he can build palaces, but with experience he learns the best he can do is shovel crap.

*

I am reminded of an American plumber's advertising slogan: "Your crap is my bread and butter."

*

As for those who demand instant solutions to all our problems, I ask two questions: (a) What possible use are or have been verbal solutions? and ( What has been your own contribution to our welfare as a nation, in addition to ordering solutions like a patron in a pizza parlor ordering a pizza with mushrooms and anchovies?

#

[Sasun]

We now have two recent books titled WHY I AM NOT A MUSLIM by Ibn Warraq and WHY I AM NOT A HINDU by Ramandra Nath.

In the first we read: "As soon as I was able to think for myself, I discarded all the religious dogmas that had been foisted on me. I now consider myself a secular humanist who believes that all religions are sick men's dreams, false - demonstrably false - and pernicious."

 

What this man has done is jump from one extreme to another. "all religions are sick men's dreams" - that's a shallow belief.

 

In the second: "Though I agree with Buddhism in its rejection of god, soul, infallibility of the Vedas, still I am not a Hindu even in this broad sense of the term Hindu, because as a rationalist and humanist, I reject all religions."

 

This is really unfair to Hinduism. As any religion Hinduism has its shortcomings, true. But unlike other religions Hindus accept ALL religions and even atheists, no religion is false for them. They worship Christian saints, Muslim saints, and all saints. I remember a TV program about an Armenian saint's statue or cemetary in India, I forget the name of the saint. Armenians have long forgotten about him, but Hindus to this day go to this place and worship him, because for them a saint is a saint no matter from what religion he/she comes.

On the other hand, we have this person who rejects his own religion and all other religions too. I doubt that this man is rational, who said that religious practice has to be irrational? That's a baseless claim. The rationality in religion is particularly true in Hinduism and Buddhism.

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, September 09, 2004

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

CREDIBILITY CANYON.

A QUESTION OF RELEVANCE.

PARTISAN VERSIONS OF THE PAST.

ARMENIAN SHAMANISM.

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

Just because I don’t believe anything Turks tell me, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I am willing to swallow everything Armenians tell me. I have been fooled by so many Armenians on so many occasions that, if an Armenian were to tell me my mother loves me, I would want to double-check his source.

*

If you think my attitude towards my fellow Armenians is negative, I say, I assure you, my friend, my attitude might as well be irrelevant on grounds of insignificance. Who after all gives a damn what a minor scribbler says? Any idiot can contradict him, any hooligan can insult him, and any imbecile can silence him. What is infinitely more relevant and significant is Armenian treatment of writers and, by extension, their fellow Armenians.

*

To put it as elegantly and as diplomatically as I can, collectively, Armenians have behaved like swine towards their writers. No need to take my word for it. Read any history of Armenian literature. But don’t expect Bolsheviks, or for that matter, any member of any party to expose its own criminal conduct. When a partisan writes about his party, he operates on the assumption that its leadership has been infallible, therefore beyond reproach.

*

If you want to know how misleading an Armenian can be, read a Communist on Tashnaks and vice versa: a Tashnak on fellow travellers. Once, when I was young and naïve, I published an interview with a prominent Tashnak only to be informed by a prominent Ramgavar that every line in my interview contained a minimum of two lies.

*

Two reasonable men may disagree, but not if one of them is an Armenian.

*

When a reader does not agree with me, he says, “I don’t agree with you.” But when an Armenian doesn’t agree with me, he calls me an idiot, probably because he believes in shamanism and thinks if he calls me an idiot a few times, I will grow long ears and bray like an ass.

[ara baliozian]

how do you explain hindu discrimination towards the untouchables, and the periodic hindu/muslim massacres that have claimed millions of innocent lives? what a religion preaches and what it practices are two different things...

what it preaches is propaganda, what it practices, history, facts, reality...judge a tree by its fruit! -- according to our own scriptures./ ara

 

 

 

What this man has done is jump from one extreme to another. "all religions are sick men's dreams" - that's a shallow belief.

This is really unfair to Hinduism. As any religion Hinduism has its shortcomings, true. But unlike other religions Hindus accept ALL religions and even atheists, no religion is false for them. They worship Christian saints, Muslim saints, and all saints. I remember a TV program about an Armenian saint's statue or cemetary in India, I forget the name of the saint. Armenians have long forgotten about him, but Hindus to this day go to this place and worship him, because for them a saint is a saint no matter from what religion he/she comes.

On the other hand, we have this person who rejects his own religion and all other religions too. I doubt that this man is rational, who said that religious practice has to be irrational? That's a baseless claim. The rationality in religion is particularly true in Hinduism and Buddhism.

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Sasun]

how do you explain hindu discrimination towards the untouchables

 

As I said Hinduism also has its shortcomings like any other religion, but it has far less shortcomings than others if you objectively look at it. The castism is an outdated social system which worked fine in the past and was accepted without questioning. It is not different from European or other social structures, where for example kings were considered divine, and other types of social inequality were supported by religious doctrines.

 

But why don't you want to see the whole picture? There are so many good things in Hinduism that outweigh the negative, why don't you want to mention those? (assuming you know, and if you don't then even worse). Next to castism there is also the Hindu ideal that each person regardless of the caste is divine and worthy of God realization. This was not just a word but practice, everyone could become a monk and be liberated and God-realized, that includes untouchables.

Hinduism is the most accepting and forgiving religion, this is not only the preaching but also the reality of millenia. It never happened that a Hindu tells someone else to accept his faith, let alone forcibly convert. On the other hand, yes, Muslims have forcibly converted Hindus, and Christian missionaries have frightened Hindus with hell to convert them. Never the opposite happened!

 

and the periodic hindu/muslim massacres that have claimed millions of innocent lives?

 

Hindus killing muslims is only a recent phenomenon, it has nothing to do with Hinduism though. It has more to do with political fervent mixed with religious fanaticism. If someone claims to be a Hindu and goes out and kills a Muslim that should not be held against Hinduism, but only against the person.

 

what a religion preaches and what it practices are two different things...

what it preaches is propaganda, what it practices, history, facts, reality...judge a tree by its fruit! -- according to our own scriptures./ ara

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Firstly, you are wrong calling religious preaching propaganda. To my mind propaganda would be a preaching function to sell a certain product that would be the main purpose of the propagandist. While what religion offers is the preaching itself, no other products are sold. Secondly, religion is what it preaches, not what some of the followers may misunderstand and mis-practice. The fruits of religion are in large part its scriptures, its ideals, what it preaches, also the degree to which its adherants fulfill the ideals in practice. What you are calling bad fruits are actually what religion preaches against, therefore your evaluation is unfair and biased if not irrelevant. Your anymousity to religion is not based on objective historical record but your personal dislike and may I say ignorance of religious truths. Particularly in case of Hinduism, you do not care the millenia history of non-violent development of Hinduism, but only recent violence on part of Hindu fanatics. Not to mention your total lack of appreciation of Hindu spiritual values.

 

Need I also mention that while you criticize religious preaching as propaganda, all you do is preaching, nothing more than that. Religion also preaches nice and high ideals which as a matter of fact have much more truth than your preaching. Then why is it that your word must be taken seriously but religious preaching is considered useless propaganda?

I remember once I criticized you for not practicing what you preach, and your answer was that you are a writer and somehow being a writer frees you from the obligation of practicing things that you wish others to practice. If that is alright for you then why can't religion just preach and not worry about practicing? Not that this is the case but I am simply amazed of the hypocricy in your reasoning.

 

Lastly, I suggest you read about Hinduism to better understand it, it is not something one can grasp from news from Kashmir or Pakistan. One good source would be Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu who will tell you about both negative and positive parts in Hinduism.

[ara baliozian]

Friday, September 10, 2004

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

TOYNBEE’S ANSWER.

GANDHI’S SOLUTION.

GRUB FIRST, THEN ETHICS.

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

When, in the final volume of his STUDY OF HISTORY, Toynbee attempted to combine all religions into a single belief system, because he saw no other alternative to mutual tolerance, universal brotherhood and peace, he was dismissed as a charlatan by humanists and as a blasphemer by men of faith. Result? Mankind continues to be at the mercy of frauds and their dupes, who persecute, kill and die in the name of a truth, which is a lie.

*

Religious leaders would agree with the above assertion provided they and their followers are excluded, of course!

*

Jews believe the Pope and his followers and all Christians in general believe in a false messiah. Christians believe, by rejecting the only true messiah, Jews are destined to burn in hell. Mullahs view Christians as infidels, and Buddhists are convinced anyone who speaks of gods, holy ghosts, messiahs, prophets, angels, devils, and virgin births inhabits a world of non-existent shadows and empty illusions.

*

A humanist believes trying to reconcile two religions is like trying to reconcile two sets of lies. You cannot reconcile 2+2=5 with 2+2=22. How can you reconcile the existence of God with his non-existence? Easy, Gandhi said. If we replace the word God with the word Truth, he explained, even atheists become believers in so far as they believe the non-existence of god to be the truth.

*

Like Toynbee’s answer, Gandhi’s verbal solution has been ignored, perhaps because it does not take into account theologians and their dogmas, for the sake of which countless men have shed their blood.

*

If a universal religion continues to be a utopian dream today, it’s because for every Toynbee and Gandhi, there are thousands of bishops, mullahs and rabbis, who make a comfortable living by peddling nonsense; and between a useless, not to say dangerous, nonsense and a useful truth, man will invariably choose the nonsense.

*

Call it original sin, call it the crocodilian fraction of the human brain, call it human perversity, call it what you will, history is clear on this point: if we view the future as an extension of the past, we are destined to be at the mercy of frauds and their dupes who value superstition above truth, brotherhood and peace.

#

[ara baliozian]

about hinduism:

it would be useful to remember that there are as many indian critics of hinduism as there are agnostics in the Christian West. One good example is Krishnamurti.

As for Vivekananda: he was first and foremost a mystic and mysticism may be connected with religion but it is a totally independent faculty. There are Buddhist mystics who are ahteists and there are Muslim and Christian mystics who believe in god. / ara

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, September 11, 2004

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

MORE ABOUT RELIGION.

THE POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE.

FROM GIBBON TO MARX &

FROM HEGEL TO RAFFI.

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

One of my critics informs me that I tend to emphasize the negative at the expense of the positive. This pattern, he writes, is evident also in my treatment of all organized religions. When I write about Christianity, for instance, I completely ignore its many positive contributions.

*

Let me expand on some of the points in my previous post:

There is no evidence to suggest that mankind has made any moral progress after the advent of Christianity. The last century, for instance, has seen more senseless bloodshed than at any other time in the history of mankind.

*

During the last two thousand years, Christianity has legitimized authoritarianism, monarchy, imperialism, colonialism, intolerance, racism, anti-Semitism, fascism, the persecution and torture of heretics, wars and massacres. Remember Voltaire's dictum: "Since it was a religious war, there were no survivors."

*

After the Golden Age of Greek culture, Christianity ushered in a thousand years of Dark Ages during which scientists were forced to accept the word of the Old Testament as the ultimate authority on all branches of knowledge.

*

Some of the greatest historians and thinkers of the West (from Edward Gibbon to Marx and Nietzsche) have written at considerable length about the negative, not to say, sinister, role of the Church in the West.

Hegel summed up the role of Christianity in the West when he said "the Christian frees himself from the human Master only to be enslaved by the divine Master." Our own Raffi echoed the same sentiment when he wrote: "As for our clergy: they have always been against individual freedom."

*

Speaking of Roman persecution of Christians, Gibbon writes in his DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: "Christians have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels." The number of Protestants "executed in a single province and a single reign far exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three centuries and of the Roman Empire."

*

For more on this subject, see DOUBT: A HISTORY by Jennifer Michael Hecht (New York, 2003. 551 pages. Index. Bibliography).

#

[Sasun]

about hinduism:

it would be useful to remember that there are as many indian critics of hinduism as there are agnostics in the Christian West. One good example is Krishnamurti.

 

Critics of everything are dime a dozen, so what is the point? One should learn the truth, criticism is not the truth. As far as crticism of religions is concerned a typical line of thinking is, since God does not exist therefore religions are lies. Nothing could be further from truth.

 

As for Vivekananda: he was first and foremost a mystic and mysticism may be connected with religion but it is a totally independent faculty. There are Buddhist mystics who are ahteists and there are Muslim and Christian mystics who believe in god. / ara

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Actually mysticism is part and parcel of religion, more so in Hinduism. Are you trying to say that Vivekananda is not a member of Hindu religion? Well, lets see some basic facts. Vivekananda was an agnostic searching for truth, he came across Sri Ramakrishna - a Hindu guru who would worship a Hindu diety in a Hindu temple. Vivekananda accepted him as his spiritual master, would spend much of his time meditating and praying, and became a wandering monk. Later on he attained God realization. At the turn of the previous century he came to Boston to represent the Hindu religion at a conference of world religions.

Now I ask you, if Vivekananda is not a part of Hindu religion then who is ??? Why are to trying to remove Vivekananda from Hindu religion?

 

The reason I suggest Vivekananda is because he is excellently positioned to tell about everything in Hinduism. First of all he was a devout practicioner of Hinduism and was more than knowledgeable in it (as well as other religions). Second of all, he speaks in the language of a western intellectual so it is easy to understand for us. And thirdly and most importantly, he is absolutely honest about everything he says. He neither tries to whitewash his own religion, nor tries to represent in black colors what he is opposed to. In fact, he is very much against organized religions.

He tells the truth, if it is his opinion then he clearly states it as opinion, if it is his realization then it is again made clear, if it is the general consensus then he represents it as such, in other words you will not see any personal infringements on truth.

Critics, on the other hand, much like yourself, are not honest and objective. They will paint all in black colors ignoring even basic facts and tainting the truth with their personal intolerance of religions. As far as religion is concerned, I consider you far from the truth, biased and unfair in your judgement. But what is the point of arguing with someone who has made up his mind already.

 

You often quote from Gandhi but you don't even want to mention that all of Gandhi's accomplishments are rooted exactly in Hindu spiritual truths. God and Truth are used interchangably in Hinduism, it is not Gandhi's invention, so please give some credit to Hinduism, or should I say first learn something about Hinduism before you attepmt to blacken it.

Edited September 11, 2004 by Sasun

[ara baliozian]

without realizing it, you are criticizing atheism and countless thinkers who did not believe in the god of priests, ayatollahs, and gurus... in addition you are criticizing Buddhism and its many mystics (I suggest D.T. Suzuki's AN INTRODUCTION TO ZEN BUDDHISM) who did not believe in god, period.

 

 

Gandhi was a special kind of Hindu and the only reason he may be described as a Hindu is that he was born in the Hindu tradition and grew up on Hindu scriptures, in the same way that rabbis are born and raised in in Hebrew tradition. Gandhi was influenced by the Vedas, but he was also influenced by Ruskin, Thoreau, and Tolstoy.

 

Mysticism is not religion. Socrates and Plato had mystical experiences, as did Hegel. Krishnamurti was also a mystic who rejected all reference to authority and religious teaching. what you don't seem to appreciate is that organized religions, like all organizations, sooner or later fall into the hand of cynical manipulators who use religious mumbo jumbo to further their powers. /ara

[ara baliozian]

the above is meant as a reply to Sasun. / ara

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, September 12, 2004

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

FAITH, RELIGION, POLITICS AND POWER.

ORWELL, HUXLEY, TOYNBEE, GANDHI.

CRITICIZING THE CRITIC.

BELIEF SYSTEMS AND THEIR CRITICS.

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

Faith is something that happens in the hearts, minds, and souls of men. What I criticize is not faith but organized religions and the power they wield; and power is power regardless of its physical or metaphysical content.

*

Faith may be beyond criticism, but organized religions, politics and power are not.

*

George Orwell: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

*

Those who oppose criticism engage in criticism in so far as they criticize dissent on the grounds that their convictions are beyond criticism, especially if there is no positive proof that their convictions are true.

*

Every belief system is also a critique as well as a rejection of all other belief systems.

*

Critics and dissidents are not popular because those who speak in the name of God or Truth don’t like being exposed as dealers in “pure wind.”

*

Christians called their critics heretics and burned them at the stake. Bolsheviks called theirs Trotskyites, bourgeois reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries and shot them. Muslims called theirs infidel dogs and blasphemers and exterminated them.

*

Even religious leaders who preach love, hate to give up their claim of monopoly of truth, to the same degree that their followers hate to give up their sense of superiority, that allows them to see themselves as the Chosen, and the rest of the world as second-class citizens, or even morally inferior trash.

*

In that sense, one could say that all belief systems are in the business of dehumanizing their fellow men. To flatter the collective ego of a minority (and all religions are minorities) they dehumanize the majority.

*

Efforts to reconcile belief systems, like those made by Aldous Huxley in his book, PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY, and by Toynbee in the final volume of his 12-volume STUDY OF HISTORY, have been ignored, sometimes even ridiculed. Who remembers today Gandhi’s noble, even if only semantic, effort to elevate the status of atheism from the opposite of religion to that of religion?

*

As for the positive contributions religions have made: consider the fate of a respectable citizen who has done nothing but serve his fellow men for many years, but as a result of unforeseen circumstances, or confluence of emotional experiences, he commits a criminal act. He is caught, arrested, tried, found guilty and punished. His standing within the community is wrecked. He is disgraced. He becomes a pariah. And now consider the case of the Catholic Church and its many corrupt popes: what has happened to the institution of the papacy? What has happened to Christianity and Islam after their countless crimes that have claimed millions of innocent victims?

*

To those who say, the abuses of individuals should not be ascribed to their institutions, I ask, What if these abuses were committed in the name of these institutions? Should we continue to assert these institutions can do no wrong or they are beyond criticism, and anyone who exposes these abuses is a blasphemer, an idiot, a lunatic, whose ideas are dangerous, negative and anti-social?

#

[Sasun]

without realizing it, you are criticizing atheism and countless thinkers who did not believe in the god of priests, ayatollahs, and gurus... in addition you are criticizing Buddhism and its many mystics (I suggest D.T. Suzuki's AN INTRODUCTION TO ZEN BUDDHISM) who did not believe in god, period.

 

Nope, I am not in the habit of making invalid generalizations. I do have much appreciation for Buddhism. I criticize atheism because I believe in the existnece of God, however I don't hold anything agaist atheists. I merely say that they don't know what they are talking about.

Look what you have done, in one sentence you have lumped priests, ayatollahs and gurus together. This is something I object, it is indeed very unfair and untruthful. Ayatollahs are institutionalized and authoritative, priests are not so authoritative but they are institutionalized, and the gurus are neither authoritative nor institutionalized. Buddha was a guru, Jesus was a guru, all the Zen masters are gurus. Others may talk about God or Enlightenment intellectually and have various opinions but gurus have a direct perception of it, therefore theirs is the most valid point and closest to the truth, and if one wants to learn anything true about God/Light then the guru/master is the right source since they have the direct perception. Proof to that should be that gurus/masters do not contradict each other. As to agnosticisms, Light/Enlightenment in Buddhism is the same God of a theist given a different name. It is impersonal, therefore it cannot be called God. You may think they are different but it only appears so superficially. A Hindu guru never tells a Buddhist seemingly agnostic master is wrong. Then of course, anyone can claim to be a guru and say anything. It is your responsibility to separate true teachers from false ones and not lump them together as one fanatic bunch. But if you do and I crticize you for making unfair generalizations it is not because I have something to hide and do not wish to be exposed.

 

Gandhi was a special kind of Hindu and the only reason he may be described as a Hindu is that he was born in the Hindu tradition and grew up on Hindu scriptures, in the same way that rabbis are born and raised in in Hebrew tradition.  Gandhi was influenced by the Vedas, but he was also influenced by Ruskin, Thoreau, and Tolstoy.

 

Gandhi was a unique human being. At the same time he was deeply religious. Perhaps one fact from his life would make you see what I mean. He asked Paramahansa Yogananda, a great Hindu guru, to initiate him into Kriya Yoga. Acceptance of a personal guru speaks of a deep religious involvement. Below is a photograph of them together (Yogananda at the left and Gandhi in the center).

 

http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/illustrations/gandhi1.JPG

 

I do not deny that Gandhi, as a person who had received western education had western influences. However, all his work for India was deeply rooted in Hindu values, and his movement of non-violent struggle of independence would have been hard or impossible to carry out in a different culture. Perhaps you see him as a universalist and a humanitarian, but that is what Hinduism is about.

 

Mysticism is not religion. Socrates and Plato had mystical experiences, as did Hegel. Krishnamurti was also a mystic who rejected all reference to authority and religious teaching. what you don't seem to appreciate is that organized religions, like all organizations, sooner or later fall into the hand of cynical manipulators who use religious mumbo jumbo to further their powers.  /ara

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Let me state it in a different way: religion cannot be without mysticism, all major religions have mysticism. Therefore I say mysticism is part and parcel of religions. Some people may have mystical experiences and not be practicing any religion. I am not saying it is impossible, what I am saying is if you gather all mysticism in the world the overwhelming majority of it would be mystic traditions of this and that religion.

But my argument is not about mysticism. I was saying that Vivekananda was as good a Hindu as any other Hindu and he cannot be considered as someone outside of Hindu religion. I think the facts I brought above are more than sufficient to prove the validity of my conviction. And yes, he was opposed to institutionalized and dogmatic dimension of religions. So what? Religion is not just institution.

Edited September 12, 2004 by Sasun