as i see it (cont.) - Pt. II

[ara baliozian]

DEALING WITH DOUBLE-TALK

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

The ultimate message of all our Genocide scholars

(be they young, middle aged, old, or more or less competent)

is one and the same:

to demand honesty from all Genocide deniers

by emphasizing the fact that

what prevents them (be they Turks, Jews, or Americans)

to accept the legitimacy of our Genocide

is not ignorance of the facts

but dishonesty motivated by self-interest.

So far so good.

The trouble begins when these very same scholars,

after demanding honesty from others,

proceed to question the honesty of the competition.

My question is:

If so far they have failed to reform their fellow Armenians,

what are their chances that they will succeed with the world?

Can a dozen or even a thousand Dadrians

change the mind of a single dishonest Turk, Israeli, or American

whose number one concern is number one?

Speaking for myself:

I have been exposed to so much Armenian double-

and sometimes even triple-talk

that I no longer believe anything an Armenian tells me.

[ara baliozian]

INTELLECTUALS AND ACADEMICS

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

At the turn of the century

we had an intellectual class and no academics;

we now have an academic class and no intellectuals.

Why this distinction?

Allow me to elaborate.

Intellectuals are as a rule anti-establishment;

by contrast, academics,

especially those who are financially dependent

on the establishment, are not.

Result #1: our academics,

or those I call massacrists (Genocide scholars)

and medievalists spend more time attacking the competition

rather than defending the people’s interests

by exposing the incompetence and corruption

within our power structures.

Intellectuals at the turn of the century

and in the decades following the Genocide,

including those who were active in politics

(like Aghbalian and Vratsian),

not to say poets (like Siamanto and Avedik Issahakian),

novelists and essayists (like Zohrab and Zabel Yessayan)

and humorists (like Odian and Massikian)

were much more anti-establishment than our academics today.

Result #2: Our hooligans assume the role of commissars of culture,

our Oriental carpet dealers wear the mantle of statesmen,

and our grandmothers acquire the status of role models,

as the people, left to their own devices,

opt for exodus from the Homeland

and assimilation in the Diaspora (a double "white" massacre),

and as our leadership…strike that!

What leadership?

I search our national horizon

and all I see is a no-man’s land of opportunists

and their loyal brown-nosing midgets

whose central concern is (in the words of Levon *****lian: 1868-1943)

"obstructing the path of all those

who wish to reform and improve our conditions

and thus perpetuate a status quo

whose sole aim is their own personal profit and aggrandizement."

I should like to see one of our academics produce such a sentence!

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Ara,

Here you rise above your usual drone, and touch upon someting interesting, and your analysis is not as off-target as usual. I know that even my praise sounds negative, but I sincerely wish that this article is an harbinger of well thought-out articles in future.

 

Very true. So true that it applies to all societies. And certain "intellectuals" (with quotes, meaning they are more like "poet-of-the-court"s) kiss up to the immediate, relevant "establishment" (let's call it "feudal lords") around them. And when they fall out with that establishment, they feel the need to glorify the alternative, much stronger establishment (let's call it "the king"), if not for material gain, then for the emotional satisfaction of being on the "winning side". They know who they are, don't they Ara?

 

"Our" academics are not just genocide scholars; but that is beside the point. The job of intellectuals and academics is not to defend "their" people per se. Academics' job is to find, explore, and defend the truth; a job which often turns into finding a feeding trough, exploring "career" options, and defending the perks of that career. Again, this has nothing to do with Armenians; it is a universal fact. As for the intellctuals, their "job" is to question the dogma, and be intellectually hyperactive.

Sure, when our "intellectuals" expect and demand enlightenment, support, and nurturing from the bazaar merchants and shoe-salesman-turned-kahanas, and get upset, disappointed and bitter when such are not forthcoming, why should the simpletons know any better? It is relatively easy to be an "intellectual"; it takes a lot more to be an intellectual. Lamentations (basically over a ruined career because the feudal lord didn't like what he heard) dressed as intellectual musings don't cut it. Cursing at the ethnic group to which the feudal lord belongs, and their past and future, doesn't help one to become an intellectual either.

In other words, bad people should stop being bad. Lousy leaders should stop being lousy. Those who benefit from an evil status-quo should become altruists. Stupid people should wise up. Yeah, and I should be 16 again, and have a clean slate to avoid the mistakes I have made.

[sen_Vahan]

TB,

 

"Coming up with new and interesting ways to look at reality is the reason-of-existence for intellectuals."

 

Many musicians and artists, for example, also come up with new and very interesting ways to look at our reality. Some of them are intellectual, some not. And if one comes up with such a beautiful idea it will not mean that he/she is an intellectual. Moreover, if I find a new way to look at the reality it also does not mean that it's my reason of existance no matter I am an intellectual or not.

 

"If everything is perfect, then there is no need for intellectuals, and there won't be any intellectuals."

 

What does it mean "everything is perfect"? If every person is happy or what? Lets imagine that we are living in a highly developed society with very happy individuals in a very rich country. Will we need intellectuals? In my point of view, yes we will, because there will be some people in that society with high curiousity. And many curious people can become intellectuals simply because they will know a lot.

 

" The reason there are intellectuals in a society is because things are not perfect and there are people with enough intellect and courage to think against the establishment. "

 

Good way for the anarchy. One can always find something aganist the establishment. But unfortunately in many cases great intellectuals with their anti-establishment can destroy the society and country. (or the nation, for instance)

 

"Whether intellectuals have good social skills or not is irrelevant."

 

Do not agree. Intellectuals as well as non-intellectuals are living in a society, so, they should have "good social skills" although i do not know what you mean by "good social skill".

 

Vahan

[Twilight Bark]

Of course they are.

If you can express or interpret reality in a new, interesting (and self-consistent) way, you are an intellectual regardless of whether you know it, and regardless of whether the society considers you as such.

 

It would not be your reason of existence, but it will be your reason of existence as an intellectual.

 

Yes. Obviously.

 

But what you are describing is not self-consistent. If everyone is truly satisfied, they won't be looking for alternatives. Curiosity is driven by not being satisfied with the "standard answers". That means "everything is not perfect". Being rich and "developed" is not the same as being happy by a long shot, and "perfect" is even a longer shot.

 

Being an intellectual has very little to do with how much you know. You must know how to think though.

 

How can a fresh, rational look at the world destroy society and country? If a society is likely to be destroyed by the simple act of intellectual exercise, it certainly deserves to undergo what is sometimes termed "creative destruction".

 

I am not saying that it's alright for an intellectual to be an anti-social criminal. If it wasn't obvious, I hope it is now. What I am saying is that being a likeable, polite, and easy-going individual is entirely irrelevant to being an intellectual. One can be a cranky, smelly, self-centered jerk, and still be an intellectual.

 

[ March 19, 2002, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[sen_Vahan]

To Ara Baliozian/

"At the turn of the century

we had an intellectual class and no academics;

we now have an academic class and no intellectuals.

Why this distinction?

Allow me to elaborate.

Intellectuals are as a rule anti-establishment;

by contrast, academics,

especially those who are financially dependent

on the establishment, are not."

 

As I understand you call intellectuals those who are called usually intelligents. Any person may be an intellectual but there is no such a class in a society. But this may be a cultural to call things in different ways.

Yes, you are right , intelligencia is anti-establishment. And I understand your attitude to Armenians: you expect more from them. No? If not, then that's a common problem even in very developed countries and societies.

And I have one question: Isn't it strange that in many cultures intelligencia is anti-establishment? Might it be that the reason is that intelligents are so clever and smart that they cannot get along with others? Or might it be that the reason is that the vast majority of intelligencia is full of decadencia? Now about Armenians - your subject of investigation - aren't our intelligents more uncommon in the sense that there are more decadents among them?

Vahan

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Vahan,

 

Coming up with new and interesting ways to look at reality is the reason-of-existence for intellectuals. If everything is perfect, then there is no need for intellectuals, and there won't be any intellectuals. The reason there are intellectuals in a society is because things are not perfect and there are people with enough intellect and courage to think against the establishment. Whether intellectuals have good social skills or not is irrelevant.

 

As for the part about "decadence", I am completely lost. Maybe Mr. Baliozian knows what you are talking about.

 

TB

[sen_Vahan]

Many musicians and artists, for example, also come up with new and very interesting ways to look at our reality. Some of them are intellectual, some not.

 

Of course they are.

 

Just your opinion.

 

If you can express or interpret reality in a new, interesting (and self-consistent) way, you are an intellectual regardless of whether you know it, and regardless of whether the society considers you as such.

 

That was a good definition of intellectual.

 

It would not be your reason of existence, but it will be your reason of existence as an intellectual.

 

One can define the-reason-of-existence as an intellectual by himself I guess. One can just express and create ideas and not to consider that as a reason for intellectual existence.

 

But what you are describing is not self-consistent. If everyone is truly satisfied, they won't be looking for alternatives. Curiosity is driven by not being satisfied with the "standard answers". That means "everything is not perfect". Being rich and "developed" is not the same as being happy by a long shot, and "perfect" is even a longer shot.

 

Curiosity may be a natural thing - scientific, for example. And there may be no "standard answers" at all. There may be no answers and there may be complete answers but a man can be driven by his curiosity anyway without knowing whether or not the answers exist.

 

Being an intellectual has very little to do with how much you know. You must know how to think though.

 

According to your definition of intellectual yes.

 

How can a fresh, rational look at the world destroy society and country?

 

Bol'sheviks and komunists were fresh thinkers in Russian Empire (relatively fresh).There were intellectuals among them driving the idea and actions. Where is the Russian Empire? Did it deserve that faith? By the way, you are talking about the rational look? Wasn't that the rational look of Socrates that changed greatly the Greek Society?

 

If a society is likely to be destroyed by the simple act of intellectual exercise, it certainly deserves to undergo what is sometimes termed "creative destruction".

 

It will hardly be destroyed by just an individual intellectual exercise but ideas are time-sensitive - "Nam ne dano predugadat',

Kak slovo nashe otzovetsya..."

 

Vahan

[Twilight Bark]

Naturally. Take it or leave it. It's a free market.

 

Let me simplify my point. You cannot be an intellectual without creating a new (and self-consistent) view of an aspect of reality. Whether you emotionaly care about the process, or it just happens naturally is secondary. Your intellectual self cannot exist without creation, regardless of whether you care about it or not. In other words, reading lots of books and repeating and mixing and matching their contents with style does not make one an intellectual.

 

Sure. And that means everything will never be perfect, and humans will keep yearning for something different, something beyond (unless they evolve/be engineered into something rather different). Those that will imagine that "beyond" before it happens will be the intellectuals of the future.

 

Fresh thinking and a new, self-consistent look at reality are not synonymous. There is a glaring inconsistency in the communist theory that only the most naive or cowed can overlook. In other words, it never was a self-consistent idea. The persons that produced it may have been intellectuals due to their other thoughts, but that particular strain of thought was a failed attempt at arriving at a new and self-consistent way to interpret reality even before the first bolshevik picked up a gun. As for whether the Russian empire deserved its fate, why should we care? An empire is by definition a self-legitimizing organized crime of collosal proportions. An empire has no moral right to exist. If a group of people decide to herd the masses at gunpoint to follow a certain "new" idea, it is hardly the fault of the intellectual. And herding people at gunpoint (or the point of a sword) is hardly a new and self-consistent way of looking at reality.

 

[ March 20, 2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[sen_Vahan]

"Naturally. Take it or leave it. It's a free market. "

 

Okay.

 

" Let me simplify my point. You cannot be an intellectual without creating a new (and self-consistent) view of an aspect of reality. "

 

All right, that's all according to your definition. But what if I do not think that the intellectual is one who creates a new and self-consistent view of reality?

 

" Fresh thinking and a new, self-consistent look at reality are not synonymous. There is a glaring inconsistency in the communist theory that only the most naive or cowed can overlook. In other words, it never was a self-consistent idea. "

 

I would not like to defend communists but their ideas were new. About self-consistency I am not sure. Can you define what the self-consistent view is?

 

"The persons that produced it may have been intellectuals due to their other thoughts, but that particular strain of thought was a failed attempt at arriving at a new and self-consistent way to interpret reality even before the first bolshevik picked up a gun. "

 

Ok, then I don't know any self-consistent view of reality. The only thing I know is that there was a lot of tryings throughout the history to create a new way of life or a new view on the reality but all of them failed sooner or later. And bol'shevism or communism was one of them. And they changed I would say forever the life of many countries and people.

 

"As for whether the Russian empire deserved its fate, why should we care? "

 

Why we should not?

 

"An empire is by definition a self-legitimizing organized crime of collosal proportions. "

 

Wow... where did you get that definition from? Again, what if I do not think so? I know, i may take it or I may leave it because of the free market.

 

"An empire has no moral right to exist. "

 

Moral right? One more definition then is needed.

 

"If a group of people decide to herd the masses at gunpoint to follow a certain "new" idea, it is hardly the fault of the intellectual. And herding people at gunpoint (or the point of a sword) is hardly a new and self-consistent way of looking at reality. "

 

Socrates did not tell people to take guns but anyway he became the pioneer of a new view (I do not know whether or not self-consistent, I am waiting for the definition). You do not have to make people to take guns in order to change the way of life - creating the idea may be the first step.

Vahan

 

P.S. Lets continue in another topic not to disturb Ara Baliozian.

[Twilight Bark]

Fine. Feel free to define an intellectual as a person that memorizes more than a certain number of books, or as one that sweeps the floors of a library, or whatever you feel is appropriate. However, if such a definition runs into trouble down the road, you are on your own.

 

For example, communism claimed that people are inherently so bad that they would exploit each other without mercy. And yet it also claimed that people are inherently so altruistic that they would work for the common good, and personal gain was not an appropriate motivation. I understand that there were "but"s and "if"s and various loopholes that allowed the official ideology to sound a little less ridiculuous than this, but that was the essence. In any case, I certainly don't want this discussion to turn into the finer points of communism or any other ideology.

 

Excellent. Time to start working on one, then.

 

Because there is no good reason, even if it was an Angels' Collective.

 

Do I need to get it from somewhere? Just think about how you form an empire. If you find one that was formed without killing the innocent, destroying lives and plundering other peoples' posessions, let me know. Then I will revise my definition.

 

It has as much moral right as a person who is a cold-blooded murderer and robber that feels no remorse for his actions. Pretty low, don't you think? If you still do not see the analogy, this discussion is hereby terminated.

 

The onus is squarely on the person holding the gun. By the time the "new idea" trickles down to the thug holding the gun, it usually boils down to "If you are with us, and if you kill those that are or may be opposing us, you'll be rewarded handsomely" or "Enough is enough, kill al those -------s". That garbage does not belong in this discussion on what constitutes an intellectual.

He is already somewhat disturbed. And I think this discussion is already exhausted.

Regards,

TB

[ara baliozian]

PATTERNS

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

At the turn of the century

the oppression of the people became

an international diplomatic football.

Result: the massacre of millions.

Now, the massacre itself has become

another international diplomatic football.

Result: another massacre (white).

As politicians (not excepting our own)

speak of truth in history and other noble principles

and ideals in the name of patriotism,

the people perish.

That’s the way it has always been

and that’s the way it continues to be.

Where politicians enter,

lies follow, and where patriotism is preached,

millions are victimized.

And I refuse to believe that there are

smart Armenians out there,

educated Armenians, Levantine wheeler-dealers

and erudite historians who cannot see this.

[ara baliozian]

QUESTIONS / ANSWERS

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

Q: What does it take for a nice Armenian to turn into a Turk from hell?

A: Sometimes only a petty misunderstanding or a silly disagreement.

Q: What does an Armenian want from another Armenian?

A: Speaking for myself, only a touch of civility and the freedom to

express my views, which cannot even qualify as demands but are

inalienable rights.

Q: What did Armenians want from Turks at the turn of the century?

A: Armenians together with Greeks, Kurds, Arabs, Russians and the Great

Powers of the West wanted the total destruction of the Empire and the

partition of all its possessions and territories.

Q: How did the Turks react?

A: Very much like a nice Armenian who disagrees with a fellow Armenian –

except that instead of sharp tongues they used yataghans.

Q: How would a nice Armenian react if a fellow Armenian made unreasonable

demands on him?

A: Like a Turk from hell.

Q: Are you saying there is no difference between Armenians and Turks?

A: No. I am saying, every nation, even the most civilized, produces its

share of fanatics and criminals. To say we are an exception to this rule

is racist nonsense.

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, March 20, 2002

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

1.

I grew up in a ghetto populated by

survivors and refugees from the Ottoman Empire.

There was less talk of massacres then

than there is now, perhaps because

these survivors knew better than anyone else

what it means to trust their destiny

into the hands of ambitious meddlers.

2.

To expose a chauvinist as a potential Turk from hell

and a self-assessed genius with messianic ambitions as a phony

may not be a pleasant task, but someone has to do it.

3.

The problem with so-called "good" Armenians is that

they think whatever they say,

they will have the support and agreement of other good Armenians.

What they seem to ignore is that

every good Armenian has his own definition of what’s good and evil;

every good Armenian is not as good as he think he is,

and (3) because he seems to be unaware of these two points,

he may even be a damn fool.

4.

Whenever an Armenian takes a dislike at another Armenian,

he calls him a Turk. It never even occurs to him to ask

if Turks would even consider accepting him as one of their own.

5.

Confucius says: "Forget injuries; never forget kindness."

Armenian translation: "Forget Turks; forget Armenians; be grateful to

odars."

[ara baliozian]

ROLE MODELS

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

In America they have their 9/11 heroes and Enron bloodsuckers.

We in the Diaspora have our Enron-style bloodsuckers

who also happen to be our heroes, national benefactors and role models.

#

I don't write for friends

(no merit in preaching to the converted)

but against enemies.

Neither do I write against Turks

(no merit in promoting hatred of which

we have enough not only for Turks but also for fellow Armenians).

#

In his JOURNAL, Gide quotes a French writer

(Jacques Riviere: 1886-1925) as having said:

"I was born to write very beautiful things

that everyone will hate and no one will want to read."

Speaking of himself, Gide writes:

"I don't write for the next generation but the one after it."

#

The famous final words of a comedian to his audience:

"I apologize to all those I did not insult."

#

In the 1992 edition of the LAROUSSE,

Narses and Gulbenkian are identified as Armenians,

but Saroyan is identified as an "American writer,"

Adamov as a "French playwright of Russian origin,"

and Aram Khachatourian as a "Soviet composer."

The entry on Talaat ***** ends with the line:

"He was assassinated by an Armenian."

There is no mention of the Genocide.

In the entry on Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal) we read the following:

"After his victories over

the Armenians, Kurds and Greeks (1920-1922)

the Allies recognized the borders of Turkey (1923)."

[ara baliozian]

an intellectual is defined as someone whose aim is to understand reality.

the Establishment is defined as those whose aim is to maintain and whenever possible to increase their power. In other words: an intellectual's aim is the truth and a politician's aim is power. Now, power and truth are incompatible concepts. which is why intellectuals have been systematically exterminated under totalitarian regimes. And by the way, just because someone says he is an intellectual it doesn't mean he qualifies as one. Any crook can say i am an honest man and even the devil can quote the Scriptures.

[ara baliozian]

A SERMON ON TOLERANCE

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

I don't expect agreement from our self-appointed commissars of culture,

only tolerance:

the kind of tolerance that is accorded to all citizens of a democracy.

As for those who accuse me of corrupting the young and misleading the

uninformed:

if our bosses and bishops have been successful in silencing some of our

ablest intellectuals

(from Abovian to Zarian), they can have minor scribblers like me for

breakfast any time they feel like it;

and if so far they have failed to silence me,

it may be because they have not yet discovered a way to control the

internet.

In the meantime, they can always rely on their hirelings and dupes

to tear everything I write to shreds

and to question my patriotism and sanity.

[ara baliozian]

THEORY AND PRACTICE

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

An Armenian is a polyglot

who will make an ass of himself in five languages.

After bragging about how smart Armenians are

he will dismiss his fellow Armenians as jerks and idiots.

After boasting about Armenian erudition,

he will denigrate the ablest Armenian scholars

as hopeless dupes and ignoramuses.

An Armenian will demand to be treated with respect

but will treat his fellow Armenians with utter contempt and disgust.

It must be obvious by now that

when an Armenian brags about Armenians,

he brags only about himself and he assumes

the most convincing way of asserting his superiority is

by putting down the competition, meaning everyone else.

That’s because if there is only one legitimate king,

the rest must be exposed as usurpers.

And please note that I am not now talking about our hooligans,

of whom we have our share,

but our elites,

the best and the brightest,

la creme de la creme, but only in theory:

in practice, la creme de la scum.

[ara baliozian]

ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN ARMENIAN LIFE

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

Sometimes I am called a "poet"

(meaning a daydreaming imbecile) by our hooligans,

and an "intellectual" (meaning a mental masturbator).

I should be angry but I am not – especially

when I think of the brilliant career opportunities

these hooligans missed in the Gestapo or the KGB.

#

One of the worst mistakes I have made in my life

is treating some of my fellow men as if they were human.

#

If you know how to read,

a written lie can be as transparent as a spoken confession.

#

As solitary creatures,

Armenian writers have been perennial victims

of political parties and their satellite institutions,

all of which have a tendency to divide their fellow Armenians

into friends and enemies or yes-men and critics.

As for dialogue: who has ever heard of such a thing

in an Ottoman or Soviet environment, or, for that matter,

in a crypto-Ottoman or neo-Stalinist context?

[ara baliozian]

IF…

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

If I am wrong, (and I hope to be),

it means only one thing:

we are in good hands (more or less),

our problems are being solved,

conditions are about to improve,

and we may even look forward to another golden age;

or silver, or nickel.

Nickel is good.

Nickel is better than garbage.

But I suspect (and I am afraid) I may be right

because some of our ablest academics

agree with me, even if only privately.

Also, I have heard our bosses, bishops, and benefactors

refer to one another (not about the opposition but the competition)

as egomaniacs, liars, hooligans (sriga), embezzlers, and assassins.

To those who say,

this sort of thing goes on everywhere.

Bad apples will be bad apples.

But what if we are not talking about

isolated rotten apples here and there

but the whole orchard?

The Turks quote me?

Let them.

Maybe they will have a better chance to reform our rascals.

One can always hope, of course.

And isn't writing an act of hope and optimism?

[ara baliozian]

ARMENIANS AND JEWS

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

Are Jews or Zionists wholly or partly responsible

for the Armenian Genocide?

If they are, it must be to the same degree that they are also responsible

 

for the decline of Germany under Hitler,

the corruption of Russia under Stalin,

the degeneration of the American South under the KKK,

and the decadence of Uganda under Idi Amin Dada.

It seems to me

a far more fertile field of investigation would be

the degree of responsibility of Armenians themselves in their Genocide,

German responsibility in the collapse of Germany,

Russian responsibility in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and so

on.

In this context to speak of Jewish or Zionist responsibility

is a clear-cut case of scapegoatism

and total abdication of responsibility.

I suspect if some day hell freezes over,

some Armenians will blame it

not on the poor management of the devils but on Jews.

It is to be noted that some of the most brilliant

German, Russian and Armenian minds married Jews

(Thomas Mann, Vladimir Nabokov, and William Saroyan –

and in Saroyan’s case, twice to the same woman).

Also to be noted, some of the ablest ARF leaders

were also married to Jews – and Jews who spoke Armenian fluently.

I don't mention ADL leaders because,

though I have heard of their existence,

I have at no time seen one in the flesh.

A final note:

I doubt very much if there is a single Zionist or Jew today

who hates Armenians as much as members of the ARF

hate members of the ADL and vice versa.

[ara baliozian]

A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly, but the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

 

—Marcus Tullius Cicero, 42 BC

[ara baliozian]

A MATTER OF TRADITION

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

"I don't understand you!"

an angry reader writes,

after which he undertakes a detailed analysis of my ideas

and rejects them all

as results of ignorance, inexperience and prejudice.

Gentle reader:

You and I are Armenians

and who has ever heard of two Armenians

agreeing on anything or,

for that matter, making an honest effort

to understand each other?

Nowhere does it say that

a fanatic should agree with a moderate

or a fool with the wise.

Please note that I am not implying here that

I am the moderate and the wise.

It may well be the other way around.

My final question is:

If a moderate and wise Armenian

(and all our bosses and bishops maintain to be both)

cannot agree with their counterparts,

what are the chances that you and I will ever compromise

and reach a consensus?

If none, let us therefore agree to disagree,

and if that’s too much to ask,

let us ignore each other thus carrying on

our tribal tradition of eternal dissent and conflict.

[ara baliozian]

ON NATIONALISM

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

1.

Nationalism has been defined as "an infantile disease."

It’s worse than that.

It’s a swindle.

2.

Nationalists emphasize the negative in other nations

and the positive in one’s own.

The worldview that emerges is bound to be false,

and any policy based on false assumptions

will result in disaster – military defeat, massacre, genocide.

3.

Without checks and balances

nationalism has a natural tendency to degenerate

to fascism and racism,

which also means contempt for all those with mixed blood,

who may outnumber those who consider themselves pure-blooded

(another concept worthy of swindlers).

4.

Nationalism is motivated less by love and more by hatred

and hatred not only of the enemy but of one’s own countrymen.

Hence the frequency and ferocity of civil wars.

In our case, civil war might as well be a state of mind

as opposed to isolated episodes or chapters in our history.

5.

Nationalism in our context is another way of legitimizing

our hatred of our fellow men

with particular emphasis on fellow Armenians.

Next time you speak to an Armenian nationalist,

observe that there will be more hostility

in his sentiments and thoughts than friendship.

6.

Subtract the articles, references, and commentaries

on Turks and Azeris from our media

and there will be little or nothing left,

and that little will be worse than nothing.

[ara baliozian]

P.S. (ON JINGOISM)

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

To prove their pure-blooded Armenian DNA,

some of our nationalist leaders, it seems,

among them elder statesmen,

who ought to know better,

trace their family trees

all the way back to the

Bagratunis (Jews),

Mamikonians (Chinese)

and Ardrzunis (Assyrians).

It is with some degree of pride therefore

that I hereby announce that on a clear day

I can trace my family tree

all the way back to my father.