notes / comments

[arabaliozian]

x/9

Thursday, October 07, 2004
*********************************
THEM AND US
***********************
Let me put it bluntly for a change.
The Turks are guilty of covering up our genocide (number of victims 1,500,000).
We are guilty of perpetrating two genocides, albeit of the "white" variant - (one) exodus from the Homeland (number of victims so far 1,500,000 and counting) and (two) assimilation in the Diaspora (number of victims many more than 1,500,000 and counting).
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my question to you is: Whose burden of guilt is heavier? Or, if you prefer: In what way are we different from them?
And before you answer that question, please take into consideration the following two factors: The Turks are motivated to cover up their crime by self-interest -- if they plead guilty as charged, they may lose a chunk of their homeland.
By contrast, we are so blinded by our incompetence, corruption and greed that we don't even bother asking: Who is going to defend the Homeland if it is depopulated?
#
Friday, October 08, 2004
********************************
FROM MY NOTEBOOKS
*********************************
I experience a state of mind that is akin to a combination of compassion, pity, self-disgust and helplessness whenever I see someone who is beyond my reach committing the same blunder that I committed twenty or thirty years ago.
*
We sometimes forget that those who disagree with us are also human beings, and like all human beings, they have their own set of blind spots and limitations as a result of a limited number of experiences. After all, who among us will claim he has experienced everything and he knows and understands everything?
*
As soon as I think I have explained a very small fraction of reality, something happens to remind me that I have been on the wrong track, and I must go back to square one and start from scratch.
*
A woman is just a woman to another woman. But she is pure magic and the promise of heavenly bliss to a man. The more distant and inaccessible she is the more powerful her spell. Which may explain why the Muslim version of heaven is much more irresistible to a sexually starving and voracious teenager than its Christian counterpart is to Christians of all ages.
#
Saturday, October 09, 2004
********************************
FROM MY DIARY
********************************
Whenever I am told "I love to read but I don't have the time," I translate it to mean, "I hate to read."
*
In his PRISON DIARY, Jeffrey Archer writes that some inmates are "genuinely evil," and others "congenitally stupid." But isn't that true of men on both sides of prison walls?
*
According to a Mahdi in today's paper: "Islam is a religion of peace. A true believer cannot be a terrorist." But what if the credo of a religion is contradicted by its history?
*
Newspaper headlines speak louder than sermons because "actions speak louder than words."
*
Are young terrorists innocent dupes? Yes, of course. But then, all followers are because, to paraphrase Krishnamurti, "If you follow someone, you cease following the truth," or "the Kingdom of God" which is within you.
*
Religions and ideologies survive and prosper because "there is a sucker born every day."
*
Belief systems create dupes because between a pleasant lie and a demanding truth, man will invariably choose the lie.
*
The winner of this year's Nobel Prize is announced. She is an Austrian novelist about whom I know nothing. Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, and Philip Roth must be three of the most disappointed men in the world today, except perhaps Saddam in his cell and Osama in his cave.
*
As soon as I sense where a sentence is leading, I skip the whole paragraph. I read as though I were about to catch a train. No patience with most 19th-century novels. Tried George Eliot and gave up after a dozen pages.
#

[curiousgeorg]

comment

If one were to read this without ever meeting an Armenian before one would think that we were a rather horrible bunch, which is obvious nonsense. One could stereotype any nationality in a negative manner if one chose to do so. On the other hand all people need a writer that hates his own people and points out only their negative characteristics. The French have Jean Francois Ravel, Americans have Gore Vidal, Israelies had the late Israel Shahak; Ara Baliozian is ours. Of course if Mr. Baliozian was as good a writer as Gore Vidal he could be forgiven, alas he is to remain guilty as charged.

[sleuth]

If one were to read this without ever meeting an Armenian before one would think that we were a rather horrible bunch, which is obvious nonsense. One could stereotype any nationality in a negative manner if one chose to do so. On the other hand all people need a writer that hates his own people and points out only their negative characteristics. The French have Jean Francois Ravel, Americans have Gore Vidal, Israelies had the late Israel Shahak; Ara Baliozian is ours. Of course if Mr. Baliozian was as good a writer as Gore Vidal he could be forgiven, alas he is to remain guilty as charged.

pfft...Are you one of those who chooses pleasant lie??

[curiousgeorg]

pfft...Are you one of those who chooses pleasant lie??

About Armenians or the writing abilities of Baliozian?
I'm guessing Armenians. Is it a lie? I don't think so. I know plenty of wonderful Armenians, my self included I might add. lol.
To say that 99% of Armenians aren't smart and the one percent are nothing more than rug merchants, he didn't use that phrase but that's the stereotypical phrase used against the Armenian merchant class, is obvious nonsense. As for Armenians hating each other; if that was the case why in the world is the Diaspora sending crazy amounts of money to the Republic and Karabagh? Explain that to me please.

[sleuth]

About Armenians or the writing abilities of Baliozian?
I'm guessing Armenians. Is it a lie? I don't think so. I know plenty of wonderful Armenians, my self included I might add. lol.
.

I will just quote ARA:

We should remind ourselves once in a while, and the more frequently the better, that we are imperfect beings living in an imperfect world and anyone who asserts or suggests or implies that he may well be an exception to this rule is one who cannot bear the weight of his imperfections and the dishonor of his blunders.

Georg it's really hard to bear the weight of imperfection.Get over from your wonderful SELF!!

If an odar criticizes us, we dismiss him as pro-Turkish. If an Armenian criticizes us, we call him an enemy of the people. We have no use for critics because we assume to be beyond criticism, and nothing makes us more vulnerable to criticism than this false assumption.(Ara)

Juts read and grasp.I have nothing more to add.



Conducting a civilized discussion is not exactly an Armenian art form. Here is a practical suggestion: state the facts as objectively as you can and let them speak for themselves. No need to engage in verbal abuse because insults cannot strengthen a weak case. On the contrary, they may expose it as untenable.

Simply genius!!

*To say that 99% of Armenians aren't smart and the one percent are nothing more than rug merchants, he didn't use that phrase but that's the stereotypical phrase used against the Armenian merchant class, is obvious nonsense.*

Here we go. Where did you get this? I bet it's your own evasive interpretation and this OBVIOUS NONSENSE dosen’t belong to Ara. This is simply humiliating and humiliation has brassy taste and smell.
His criticism is enlightening rather than belligerent. And it's not humiliating as you make it sound.

cheers.

[curiousgeorg]

I have never claimed Armenians are perfect human beings, myself included. And if you read my first post I stated clearly that all people need writers to point out their nationality's negative characteristics. Please read that first post. I'm not saying Ara is doing anything bad. I may disagree with his negative point of view, but I think what he is doing is a very healthy thing for the Armenian intelligentsia and culture. I'm just taking it all with a grain of salt.
About your quote by Ara saying that "[i]f an odar criticizes us, we dismiss him as pro-Turkish. If an Armenian criticizes us, we call him an enemy of the people" I have not called Ara an enemy of the people. I just [gasp] dare to think for myself and not hang on the words of an Armenian intellectual who likes to hate his own people.

And finally Mr. Baliozian said this:
"Armenians are smart!" A statement that consists in 99% wishful thinking and 1% cunning in the marketplace."
Now how am I misinterpreting this line not to say 99% of Armenians are stupid, yes that is the antonym of smart. And cunning in the marketplace is a loaded phrase that has been used to denigrate not just Armenians but Greeks and Jews alike.

cheers, mate
P.S who said Armenians can't have a civilized argument? Sounds like another falsehood to me.

[arabaliozian]

x/13

Sunday, October 10, 2004
**********************************
"Armenians are smart." "Armenians are tolerant." "Armenians are progressive." I am astonished at the ease with which some Armenians spout similar clichés that are motivated more by self-flattery and less by objective judgment. Speaking for myself: when it comes to my fellow Armenians, I have more questions than answers, questions such as: "If suffering ennobles, why is it that we have among as such preponderance of loud-mouth charlatans who feel more at home in the gutter?"
*
In his latest novel, THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA, Philip Roth writes that he grew up "with a definition of the Jew as an object of ridicule, disgust, scorn, contempt, derision, of every heinous form of persecution and brutality." This might as well be how an Armenian writer feels among his "smart, tolerant, and progressive" fellow Armenians.
*
Between a short sentence and a long paragraph, sermonizers and speechifiers will invariably choose the paragraph and the longer the paragraph, the shorter the meaning, and the greater the distance from the truth.
*
Only Armenians who have been exposed to many sermons but have not read a single book by Raffi, Zabel Yessayan, Zohrab, Shahnour, Massikian, Zarian, and many other 19th- and 20th-century writers are convinced our Church has played a central role in our survival as a nation.
*
The only way to avoid controversy is to use words with contradictory meanings. If you think this can't be done, read James Joyce.
*
Judging by the popularity of religions and ideologies, the world seems to be populated by dupes who, when told 2+2=5, say, no, 2+2=22!
*
And speaking of our Church: I wonder, how many Armenians are familiar with Toynbee's classification of it as a "fossil" - meaning, brain-dead.
*
I read the following in a review of a recent biography of Jorge Luis Borges: "He insisted that he was part of a universal culture and refused to be pigeon-holed as an Argentine writer, though he was that, too, of course." I like that.
*
More about our Church. The question we should ask is: Do we believe the fellow with a full belly who speaks in the name of God, or the one who speaks for no one but his half-starving self?
#
Monday, October 11, 2004
*********************************
A routine occurrence in history: when they are underdogs, men of faith preach love, compassion and mercy; but when they are top dogs, they practice intolerance, hatred and murder.
*
On the roots of our own intolerance: after centuries of "Yes, sir!" to a long line of ruthless and alien lords and masters, we turn into control freaks among our fellow Armenians, banning, censoring, and verbally abusing anyone who refuses to say "Yes, sir!" to us.
*
If "there is a Turk in all of us," this Turk surfaces only when we deal with fellow Armenians. Hence, the familiar phenomenon of the Armenian who is a lamb among odars and a wolf among his fellow countrymen.
*
Am I right or wrong? Frankly, I am no longer consumed with the rage to prove myself right. I know that in the eyes of those who have programmed themselves to disagree with me, I will always be wrong. I also know that I am not qualified to deprogram Armenians. Nobody is!
*
Those who disagree with me today may agree with me tomorrow. When I was young, I too disagreed with many things with which I agree today.
*
Whenever something bad happens to me, I look for the silvery lining; and whenever, on those rare occasions, I find it, it turns out to have been a mirage. Once, I remember, I even found a positive aspect in our genocide. If it weren't for the massacres, I thought, we would now be breathing the same air as the Turks, we would be communicating in Turkish with one another, and we would be discussing such topics as the prospect of Turkey joining the EU. And needless to add, we would all be for it.
#
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
************************************
We all swim in a sea of uncertainty, doubt, and anxiety. We hunger for certainties, and when we can't find them, we invent them; and having invented them, we defend them - sometimes unto death.
*
Since the beginning of time men have sensed the presence of an invisible and incomprehensible power which they have called god. And in their efforts to make the invisible visible, and the incomprehensible accessible, they have invented an astonishing number of stories, myths, fables, legends, dogmas, rituals, and belief systems which they have called religions. But because they have failed repeatedly to explain the mystery, or, if you wish, to lower god to their own level, they have reached contradictory conclusions. The result has been a long series of disagreements, conflicts, and sometimes even wars and massacres.
*
It has been said that, man cannot create a single worm, yet, he has created ten thousand gods.
*
Where people can think for themselves, there will be disagreement. There will be disagreement even where people cannot think for themselves because they have been conditioned not to think but to parrot someone else's thoughts.
*
Disagreement in itself is not a problem. The real problem is how we deal with it. Do we see it as a symptom of heresy, blasphemy, or evil, or do we see it as the beginning of a dialogue that may lead to compromise and consensus, which does not mean agreement but working together -- as opposed to working at cross purposes and against one another. So far, religions have failed to follow the path of dialogue and consensus by asserting a monopoly on truth and by legitimizing intolerance.
#
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
************************************
When we use the word culture we think of art, literature, and music. We forget that culture springs from an invisible source within us. It is above all an expression of how we feel and think. Ignorance, intolerance and envy are not culture but barbarism.
*
There is ignorance, intolerance and envy everywhere, of course, but they don't set the tone and they don't animate institutions and their policies. Only cultures or societies that are on a downward path do that.
*
In a letter to the editor in this morning's paper I read: "God is love, yes, certainly! But God is also justice." The question is: What kind of justice are we talking about here? An-eye-for-an-eye justice, or love-your-enemy justice?
*
Sermonizers can't be contradicted because they speak on the authority of Scriptures that are full of contradictions.
*
There will come a time when theology and religions in general will be branches of study under psychopathology, like paranoia, schizophrenia, and mass hysteria. And churches will become museums as in Moscow, or movie theaters as in Venice.
*
I share my understanding with those who are in need for it. As for the others, they shouldn't even waste their valuable time reading me, because I have nothing to say to people who know and understand everything. And they have nothing to say to me either for the very simple reason that once upon a time I too knew and understood everything.
#

[arabaliozian]

reply

i have at no time maintained to be as good a writer as Gore Vidal or Revel. But i think by good writing you mean the packaging not the content. Perhaps on the day i package my message in a more stylish manner my credibility will be enhanced in your eyes. But the content of my message will remain the same, no?

thank you for reading me! / ara

[curiousgeorg]

i have at no time maintained to be as good a writer as Gore Vidal or Revel. But i think by good writing you mean the packaging not the content. Perhaps on the day i package my message in a more stylish manner my credibility will be enhanced in your eyes. But the content of my message will remain the same, no?

thank you for reading me! / ara

Packaging is everything if you are a writer. Ideas are had by all people, but a good writer is able to take those ideas and make a piece of art out of it. A good example is Albert Camus. His Notebooks are brilliant; his style there was simply putting out his ideas in short form, like what you are doing on this webpage. But that was not great writing. Camus taking those ideas and writing :The Stranger" or "Exile and Kingdom", for example, made him a good writer. Putting out well though out ideas, which you do and I disagree with, is being an intellectual. Making art out of it is to be a good writer. Also, I hope you don't take this personally I am just putting my two cents in.

[arabaliozian]

more....

Thursday, October 14, 2004
************************************
A prominent French philosophy (Gilles Deleuze) once said, what mankind needs more urgently than anything else is an objective and thorough analysis of human stupidity, "against which even the gods cannot compete" (Goethe).
*
When he runs for a second term, an American presidential candidate may have to defend or misrepresent or cover up four years of mismanagement and blunders. Imagine, if you can, a bishop or an imam defending centuries of intolerance, not to say, lies, sometimes even wars and massacres that have claimed millions of innocent lives.
*
We cannot explain the incomprehensible, neither can we describe the invisible, and god is both.
*
Truth is an endless search. He who claims he has found it, lies.
*
Truth, like god, is beyond our reach. The best we can do is move closer, and the only way we can do that is by exposing and discarding lies, especially the ones that say, god or truth is within our grasp.
*
A wise man once said: "I am willing to worship a man who says he is searching for the truth; but I will be glad to kill him if he says he found it."
*
When presidential candidates debate, they come very close to calling each other hypocrite and liar. I dread to think what bishops and imams will call one another if they ever debate.
*
Religion is something between you and your god. You don't need a mosque or cathedral in which to pray. Neither do you need a bishop or an imam who tells you he knows better because he speaks in the name of god.
*
He who says he understands the incomprehensible, lies. And he who says he can describe the invisible, is a fraud.
#
Friday, October 15, 2004
******************************
Imagine the following scenario: a clergyman in an isolated hicktown somewhere in America (remember DELIVERANCE) is caught torturing and burning at the stake those he views as heretics. Accused of serial killing, he is arrested and tried in a court of law. His lawyer pleads insanity even though the clergyman did what he did because he was following the dictates of his faith just as his medieval predecessors had done. Will the jury's verdict be guilty or not guilty?
*
As far as I know, no serious historian has ever ascribed the Inquisition to insanity. Which may suggest that there is no such thing as a clear and universal definition of insanity, insanity is relative, and insanity is in the eye of the beholder or an extension of the zeitgeist (spirit of the time).
*
I disagree. We can't adapt definitions to suit our prejudices even if these prejudices are ascribed to religious faith - especially to religious faith. I maintain there is rational conduct and irrational conduct, and the irrational becomes criminal when it claims innocent victims.
*
One reason I view religious insanity much more dangerous than individual insanity is that, individual insanity may lead to murder, but collective insanity may lead to war and massacre - remember Voltaire's dictum: "Since it was a religious war, there were no survivors."
*
Throughout history man (who is "wolf to other men") has always found a way to legitimize murder (or the crocodilian fraction of his brain) in the name of this or that higher principle.
*
Which is why to this day the Turks find it difficult to plead guilty to the charge of genocide. They did what they did because they were following their faith, they believed in the authority of their sultan (who spoke in the name of Allah) and his successors. The Sultan was to them what the Pope is to Catholics, and what English monarchs ("defenders of the faith") are to Brits.
*
If we justify religious insanity, or the crimes committed in the name of faith, then we must also agree with the Turks that our so-called genocide is a figment of our collective imagination. Or, the murder of innocent victims is not murder if it is committed in the name of God.
*
To those who say, we are not Asiatic barbarians and we no longer live in the Middle Ages, I say, in the eyes of jihadist Muslims, we are worse than that: we are degenerate giaours and riffraff who deserve to be exterminated.
#