notes / comments

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Tuesday, July 04, 2006
************************************
Of all blunders, confusing ideology with theology is the most dangerous.
*
Generalizations about fellow human beings belong to the realm of propaganda and as such should be dismissed as lies.
*
A religious leader who says “believers are good and infidels bad,” and a political leader who says “we are among the chosen and our enemies the scum of the earth,” should be tarred, feathered, and driven out of every city, town, and village on the face of the earth. Then and only then we may have peace.
*
One of the most hilarious scenes in American literature takes place in the first chapter of Cormac McCarthy’s BLOOD MERIDIAN (New York, 1985). A total stranger interrupts a sermon in a tent in the middle of nowhere and calls the preacher an impostor, a fraud, a usurper, a fugitive from justice wanted in four states, a child molester, and a man who has been caught “having congress with a goat.” “Hang the turd!” a member of the congregation yells. “Shoot the son of a xxxxx!” says another. Later, in a saloon, the stranger is seen drinking. When asked, “How did you come to have the goods on that no-account?” he replies: “I never laid eyes on the man before today. Never even heard of him.”
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Wednesday, July 05, 2006
***********************************
According to a recent best-selling book by an American sociologist, crowds behave more wisely than individuals. If true, how does one explain the fact that throughout history war-makers and propaganda have been more popular than peacemakers and objectivity? How does one explain the fact that in the name of such slogans as “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Workers of the World Unite,” “Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles,” and “Allahu akhbar,” crowds have been moved to commit some of the worst crimes against humanity? Closer to home: consider the fate of best-selling books that no one remembers after a year or two.
*
My most popular book (sold over ten thousand copies), THE ARMENIANS: THEIR HISTORY AND CULTURE, is also my least honest book not because it contains lies – it doesn’t: every assertion in it is footnoted – but because it emphasizes the positive and ignores or covers up the negative. Which may suggest that crowds value bias and flattery over honesty and truth.
*
A wise man – it may have been G.B. Shaw – once said there is only one way to end wars and that’s by shooting the war-makers. And yet, consider the fate of war-makers like Alexander the Great and Napoleon (who died natural deaths) and that of peacemakers like Jesus Christ (crucified) and Mahatma Gandhi (assassinated).
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Thursday, July 06, 2006
*******************************************
Behind every story there is another story, and inside every person there is a labyrinth of conflicting reasons and unconscious drives most of which are destined to remain beyond his awareness even after decades of psychoanalysis. Never say therefore “I know and understand everything I need to know and understand,” because to say so is to admit you have reached a dead end and you might as well be more dead than alive.
*
Understanding and self-interest move in two different dimensions and whenever self-interest contaminates understanding both are bound to suffer.
*
If you ever find yourself questioning the importance of objectivity in human affairs, consider that women are better judges of women than men because they can afford being more objective on the subject.
*
Most Armenians, except perhaps Armenian-Americans, have lived and worked in more than two countries and speak more than two languages. This allows them to assume to be better informed. I will never forget the Armenian who fully qualified as an inbred moron with a negative IQ and fluent in seven languages (or so he claimed) who once bragged being more “erudite” than everyone around. If I have mentioned this Armenian before it may be because I see myself in him – myself as a young whippersnapping windbag all sound, fury, and unmitigated b.s. signifying nothing, very much like our sermonizers, speechifiers, and pundits.
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Friday, July 07, 2006
***************************************
If national consciousness or solidarity is what makes a nation, all so-called ideological divisions serve only to legitimize tribalism and to implement the divide-and-rule tactics of the enemy. It follows, the ultimate aim of all our tribal leaders and enemies is one and the same: the destruction of the nation, or genocide by other means.
*
Our partisan pundits have spent nearly a century trying to convince the Turks to plead guilty, all the while pretending their own conduct to be beyond criticism, which is as big a lie as Turkish denial.
*
The life of a murderer as that of a liar is dominated by fear of exposure.
*
You cannot correct an error whose existence you refuse to acknowledge.
*
The wrong path may lead to the mirage of an oasis but not to the Promised Land.
*
What Oscar Wilde said of fox hunting, one could say of our ideologues and pundits: “The unspeakable in the pursuit of the uneatable.”
*
When you undertake the task of exposing liars, it is always advisable to begin with your own lies.
*
The more you rely on luck the sooner you will run out of it.
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Saturday, July 08, 2006
*************************************
INTERVIEW
**************************
QUESTION: IN YOUR NOTES AND COMMENTS OF YESTERDAY YOU SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT OUR LEADERS ARE GUILTY OF GENOCIDE BY OTHER MEANS. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
*
ANSWER: There is genocide by massacre, and there is genocide by means of actions and policies that contribute to the destruction of the nation.
*
Q: SUCH AS?
*
A: Introducing divisions on ideological or religious grounds, for instance.
*
Q: BUT SUCH DIVISIONS EXIST EVERYWHERE, DO THEY NOT?
*
A: They do, yes, but with one important difference. In a democratic environment there are mechanisms designed to reconcile opposing views by means of dialogue and compromise. The majority has its way, provided of course it operates within the law. Throughout our millennial history we have at no time experienced democratic rule.
*
Q: IS NOT OUR HOMELAND A DEMOCRACY TODAY?
*
A: In theory, maybe. But in practice it’s part oligarchy and part kleptocracy whose aim is not to serve the interests of the people but to perpetuate the prosperity and survival of the priviligentsia.
*
Q: AND IN THE DIASPORA?
*
A: Our political parties and their bosses in the Diaspora operate like authoritarian rulers intolerant of dissent, which means no dialogue, no compromise, and no consensus. Result: perpetual tribalism, unending conflicts and divisions, and monologues that never cross.
*
Q: BUT DON’T THESE POLITICAL PARTIES REALIZE THAT BY CONTRIBUTING TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE NATION THEY ARE COMMITTING SUICIDE?
*
A: That’s a question that should be addressed to our bosses.
*
Q: DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION?
*
A: Where there are no democratic checks and balances, leaders invariably end up digging their own graves. Empires, nations, and tribes that die by suicide are routine occurrences in world history. The only way to explain that is to say that unlike ideas and by extension ideologies that may evolve and adapt in an infinite number of directions, provided they move in an abstract dimension, the option of power, or men of power, are limited to only two: to increase their power, and if they can’t do that, to cling to it for as long as they can even if it means acting in direct contradiction of the very same ideology that allowed them to assume power by popular support.
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Sunday, July 09, 2006
****************************************
The first and most important rule in etiquette: never say what you really think. Sometimes it is even advisable to say the exact opposite, especially in your dealings with superiors or anyone in a position to retaliate.
*
Because I say what I think, I have made more enemies than friends and even my friends don’t like me. But I plead extenuating circumstances: I am a writer, an admission that in the eyes of our philistines amounts to an insanity plea. That’s the way it is with philistines: if you expose their dishonesty they will label you as insane.
*
“I have learned a great deal from my critics,” one of our notorious philistines once told me; what he neglected to add is, when was the last time this miracle had taken place.
*
I don’t remember any one of our bosses, bishops, benefactors and their dupes saying they have learned something from Baronian or Odian, or for that matter, Yeghishe and Khorenatsi. That’s because these gentlemen proceed on the assumption that they know everything they need to know, and since they can read the mind of God, they don’t need a scribbler’s two cents’ worth. And they say they have learned from their critics because it is good PR, it denotes an open mind, even if it is the exact opposite.
*
By learning all about PR and etiquette you may master the art of hypocrisy and doubletalk, two necessary ingredients for going places.
*
Beware of the defenseless; they may be your most dangerous adversaries.
*
There is nothing in this world as good as the love of a good woman, except perhaps the love of a bad one.
#
Monday, July 10, 2006
******************************************
THE SOVIET EXPERIENCE
*************************************
Like all conquerors in the history of mankind, what the Soviets did was to expose our tribalism in both the Homeland and the Diaspora by adopting divide-and-rule tactics.
In the Diaspora, Tashnaks opposed the regime and in doing so they identified the people (the victims) with the commissars (their victimizers) and ignored the majority of the people who were too busy trying to survive to have the luxury of political awareness.
The Ramgavars supported the regime because they saw the conquerors not as oppressors but as defenders against the bloodthirsty monster next door.
Others confused the regime with the ideology and the ideology with theology. In their eyes Lenin and Stalin were messianic figures and defenders not only of the Homeland but also of all exploited workers around the world. Communism was a religion for whose sake they were willing to betray the heretics to the authorities even if the heretics happened to be friends and brothers. That’s bad enough, but what is infinitely worse is that even after the collapse of the regime, even after the show trials of the 1930s, even after the starvation of millions, the successive waves of purges and the Gulag, some of these “defenders of the faith” refused to give up their religion and openly declared to have been proud members of the Party. Were they “useful idiots” or cunning operators willing to sell their souls to a ruthless gang of criminals in exchange of thirty pieces of silver? Were they sleepwalkers who refused to wake up because waking up meant facing the reality of their betrayal?
In all fairness, I should also mention the fact that there were decent and selfless Armenians who refused to join the chorus of dupes even if it meant persecution, exile, and death, but as always in our environments, they were ignored.
It is not my intention here to open old wounds but to ask: What have we learned from the Soviet experience? The answer is, nothing! We continue to be at the mercy of crypto-Stalinist and neo-fascist charlatans who believe they know better what’s good for the people and armed with that article of faith they violate the fundamental human rights of free speech of anyone who dares to disagree with them.
#
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
***********************************
IN PRAISE OF FREE SPEECH
********************************************
If I knew what you know and vice versa, perhaps some of our disagreements would take a step towards reconciliation. And if I knew what everybody else knows and has experienced, and vice versa, we would all have a better chance of reaching a consensus. Which is why free speech matters. Which is also why those who violate anyone’s free speech promote ignorance and legitimize internecine conflicts without end. It is this and nothing else that has made of us perennial losers and victims.
*
Where there is no free speech, there will be fear of knowledge and a favorite target of vilification. Under the Nazis it was the xxxs; under the Soviets bourgeois nationalist reactionaries, in the Muslim world today it’s “infidel crusaders,” and under our own “genocide fascists” it’s Turks.
*
Unlike charlatans, an honest man will never say, “My free speech is more important than yours,” which amounts to saying “What I know is more important than what you know.” Where people are allowed to assess themselves, even an inbred moron with a negative IQ will assess himself as a genius. I have seen it happen.
*
In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church said, “What we know is more important than what everybody else knows, including scientists.” Result: a thousand years of Dark Ages during which Muslims were ahead of the West in all fields of knowledge. If it were up to our partisans and pundits, we would never emerge from our own Dark Ages.
*
When our partisans and pundits expect me to believe that Turks are the most important subject of discussion, I feel justified in suspecting there is something rotten in their state of mind (if you will forgive the overstatement) and that these gentlemen (ditto) are hiding something from me, and that something may well be fear of being exposed as charlatans.
*
To say that Turks should be our favorite subject of discussion is to imply that what was done to us nearly a century ago is more important than what’s being done today; and the past (which we cannot change) is more important than our present and future (which we can change). But change is what all authoritarian rulers and fascists dread most. Because change may erode their petty little powers and privileges which may not even amount to thirty pieces of silver.
*
Germans lost World War II because they believed what xxxs know (among them Einstein) can’t be as important as what Germans know. It never pays to underestimate the value of someone else’s knowledge. Had Germans been more tolerant, I would probably be writing these lines in German now.
*
When we choose not to know that which we ought to know, when that is we value ignorance over knowledge, we choose death -- if not of the body than of the spirit.
#
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
*****************************************
ON THE REALITY PRINCIPLE
***************************************
What’s positive and what’s negative in life? This question interests me because sometimes I am urged to be more positive on the grounds that I am consistently negative.
*
An environment in which illusions, fallacies, misconceptions, lies, wishful thinking and, by extension, propaganda are dominant, he who speak of facts or the reality principle will be perceived as negative. And because I stick to facts, readers who are too cowardly or brainwashed to cross a specific propaganda line label me as negative.
*
Once upon a time I too had many illusions and I appreciate the ease and comfort they provide; I also know how hard it is to give them up. But give them up we must because challenging the reality principle may end in tragedy.
*
What could be more positive than the idea of a free, independent, and historic Armenia as proclaimed by our revolutionaries a hundred years ago? And yet, it resulted in wholesale massacres that came close to destroying the nation.
*
Behind every tragedy there is an illusion; a tragedy may even be defined as the reassertion of the reality principle. Oedipus blinded himself because he acted on the false assumption that the old man he was killing could not be his father, and the old lady he was marrying could not be his mother. King Lear deluded himself into thinking that he could count on the gratitude of his offspring. Hamlet thought his mother could never marry a man guilty of fratricide. The Trojans deluded themselves into thinking that they should not question the integrity of Greeks bearing gifts. I think it was Einstein who once observed that sometimes we pay most for things we get for nothing.
*
Consider the mess in Iraq today: Bush went to war there under the misconception that as the head of the mightiest empire in the history of mankind, he could win an easy victory. And then to his surprise, the reality principle kicked in.
*
Consider our century-old campaign on the Genocide recognition issue: my guess is we have invested more money on it than we will ever recover in reparations. Am I being positive or negative? You decide.
*
Finally, may I confess that I continue to labor under the illusion that I can reason with my fellow Armenians notwithstanding the fact that two thousand years of history prove the contrary.
##

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Thursday, July 13, 2006
******************************************
DON’T SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER
**************************************************
Almost all catastrophic blunders begin by exaggerating the importance of a blade of grass and ignoring the prairie. And such exaggerations come naturally to us because we live with ourselves 24/7 and think we harbor more complexities than the rest of mankind.
*
It is no exaggeration to say that World War I (which prepared the ground for World War II) began because a nobody assassinated another nobody in the middle of nowhere during a non-event. Why was this assassination so important? I suspect only a handful of specialized historians may have an answer, which may succeed only in exposing the absurdity of human conduct.
*
The happiest years of my life were when I knew nothing and understood even less. This may explain why most people prefer ignorance to knowledge; and if you dare to share your knowledge with them, they resent you; they may even hate you because they feel more comfortable in a world of clichés and platitudes. Clichés such as “first nation to convert to Christianity,” which is immediately and invariably followed by another first – “first nation to experience genocide in the 20th century.” Even clichés that open old wounds are welcome because they shift the burden of responsibility and guilt on others.
*
The other day I received an e-mail from a gentle reader that said, among other things, “How dare you think of yourself as a writer?” As a matter of fact, whenever I think of myself as a writer, I can’t write. The responsibility paralyzes me. Don’t think of me as a writer but as a fellow human being who for a few minutes every day likes to share his thoughts with a handful of readers who are absolutely free to ignore him.
#
Friday, July 14, 2006
**************************************
Can you imagine anything more tedious and unreadable than a work of fiction whose central character and narrator is a small-town clergyman? I would have answered that question with a resounding no, until I read Marilynne Robinson’s GILEAD; and when I finished reading it I felt as though I had lost a good friend. So I decided to reread it.
*
Another book I have been rereading is Samuel Beckett’s WAITING FOR GODOT, whose central two characters, wonderfully named Estragon and Vladimir, while waiting for someone whose arrival is perpetually postponed, spend their time verbally abusing each other, their final insult being “Critic!” Sounds familiar?
*
Luis Bunuel: “I am neither a believer nor an atheist, but the exact opposite.”
*
Nothing comes easier to an Armenian than to overestimate himself. If he is cunning, he will think of himself as intelligent. If he is intelligent, he will think he is wise. If he is talented, he will brag about his genius. Saroyan bragged about the fact that his initials were the same as Shakespeare’s. And then there is the type of Armenian who prides himself on his superior brand of Armenianism but who writes with the concentrated venom of a Turkish viper.
#
Saturday, July 15, 2006
*************************************
ON CORRUPTION
***************************
To be a writer does not mean to know and understanding everything or, for that matter, to be infallible. I don’t mind admitting that compared to what there is to know, what I know is no more than a drop in the ocean, and that there are a great many things that I don’t understand and I will never understand. On the subject of my deficiencies I could also add that I have experienced very little and done even less. But I can say one thing in my favor: I have at no time knowingly supported the corrupt or anyone who has abused his power by violating someone’s fundamental human right.
*
Whenever I speak of corruption, I am immediately, not to say automatically (that is to say, unthinkingly) informed by some readers that there is corruption everywhere, meaning, I might as well shut up and mind my own business. To these gentlemen I would like to ask: If, as you say, there is corruption everywhere, what exactly have you done to expose it? What are you doing to combat it? If you have done nothing, on whose side are you? Don’t you think it is the duty of all decent men to expose corruption and combat those who profit from it? If you have done nothing, why do you find it necessary to obstruct the path of those who, unlike you, refuse to come to terms with it? What makes you think the rest of mankind should accept you as a role model by adopting a passive stance? Doesn’t it ever occur to you that by explaining corruption and in the process justifying it, you may also be perpetuating and legitimizing it? Don’t you think to ignore the cry of victims means to be on the side of victimizers? And worse, much worse. Don’t you think by coming to terms with the corrupt of this world and by accepting it as if it were an inevitably fact of life, like death and taxes, you dishonor the memory of countless decent men throughout history who opposed corruption and abuses of power, and by doing so they risked their own lives?
*
If you tell me I take myself too seriously and that even if I were to scream at the top of my lungs for the next hundred years nothing will change and that if anything has changed during the last twenty or thirty years that I have been writing it has been for the worse, then I will reply by saying, at least I have harmed no one but myself. But if, and I say if, by what I have written I have made one or two individuals here and there, now and then, uncomfortable even if it means for a fraction of a second, then I don’t think it has all been for nothing.
#

[jgk3]

Re: notes / comments

But if, and I say if, by what I have written I have made one or two individuals here and there, now and then, uncomfortable even if it means for a fraction of a second, then I don’t think it has all been for nothing.
#

It must definately feel satisfying to make your readers think twice about issues they've learned to dogmatically accept.

That fraction of a second of feeling uncomfortable still has a very profound effect on their future judgement. When we are confident about our knowledge, we've just reached a dead end. Feelings of discomfort are just what the doctor ordered.

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Sunday, July 16, 2006
*****************************************
Gabriel Fauré (1845-1924), French composer on the ideal tempo for a song: “If the singer is bad – very fast.”
*
If the subject is propaganda, reduce a complex issue to a cliché or slogan: Turks are bad, Armenians good. We are smart, progressive, civilized, everybody else is corrupt, backward, dishonest. We do the right thing, none of our enemies and their partisans are equipped to discriminate right from wrong. We touch the top, they scrape the bottom. God is on our side, the devil is on theirs. Heaven is our destination, hell is theirs.
*
What if some of our most cherished certainties are based on a transparent misrepresentation of reality, in the same way that some of the worst crimes against humanity are committed in the name of a god we only pretend to know and understand, but about whom “we know nothing” (Socrates)?
*
Contradictions and differences of opinion are useful only in a dialogue. Anywhere else they only paralyze the mind and poison the soul.
*
The stated reason is seldom the real reason. If the stated reason is altruistic, search for the unstated selfish reason.
*
When two men speaking in the name of god contradict each other, it only means that either one or both are charlatans, liars, and blasphemers with illusions of grandeur.
#
Monday, July 17, 2006
*********************************************
SPEAKING WITH A FORKED TONGUE
**************************************************
The chances are, the opposite of what we say contains more truth than what we say.
*
Our Father (but no one else’s) who art in heaven, Halvajian be thy name. Give us this day our pilaf and shish-kebab (and stones to our enemies). Forgive us our trespasses on condition that you don’t expect us to forgive the bastards who trespassed against us. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us straight to the devil, because he makes fewer demands on us.
*
FREEDOM OR DEATH
********************************
Freedom for us, death to everyone else, including our dupes.
*
Behind every heroic slogan, search for the cowards who formulated it. Or, as the Turks are fond of saying, “Among ten men nine are sure to be women.” The Chinese have a similar saying: “Those who make idols don’t believe in them.
*
SHADES OF GRAY
********************************
Chekhov: “There are no good people and no bad people in my plays, only people.”
*
Ronald Harwood explaining why his characters are shades of gray rather than black and white: “If you color your characters in one or the other, you are dealing in propaganda.”
*
SPEAKING OF PROPAGANDA
****************************************
In her recently published biography of Magda Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, Anja Klabunde quotes her as having said: “Joseph is the greatest loudmouth phony that has ever lived on German soil.”
#
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
**************************************
If I were a man of faith I would keep it a secret lest I offend others of a different persuasion. No one likes to be thought of as an infidel, a heretic, a blasphemer, or a deviationist on his way to the devil.
*
Nietzsche says somewhere “those who speak with a loud voice cannot have subtle thoughts.” Something similar could be said of men of faith.
*
There is no conceivable reason why god and good manners should be mutually exclusive. If you discard good manners in the name of god, what’s to stop anyone from using god as a license to kill?
*
People who value life over death may be relied on to do what’s best in their own interest. But the same cannot be said of men of faith who believe they will be better off dead than alive.
*
All undemocratic ideologies and power structures value conformism, obedience, and subservience above freedom and creativity. All totalitarian regimes tacitly subscribe to the Orwellian slogan “Slavery is Freedom.”
*
If what we believe shapes our character, it would be no exaggeration to say that very often faith creates hoodlums, vandals, and killers.
#
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
**************************************
Somewhere Plekhanov observes, “Bourgeois scientists make sure that their theories are not dangerous to God and to Capital.” He should have added: “Communist scientists make sure that their theories do not in any way question the infallibility of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. Closer to home: our pundits and academics today make sure that nothing they say may be remotely critical of our bosses, bishops, and benefactors on whose goodwill they depend for their survival and prosperity. Hence, the proliferation of massacre books in which all the blame is heaped on others.
*
Every power structure generates its own gods and bourgeoisie whose number one concern is number one.
*
Leadership, it has been said, consists in the ability to see “the other side of the hill.” My question is: if our leaders could not foresee the Genocide, what the hell can they foresee?
*
An honest man will never say, “If you want to be right, you must think as I do.” It is the mighty of this world that impose their ideas on others because they sense instinctively that they are wrong and only intimidation will persuade others to agree with them.
*
I read today that when slavery was legal, blacks owned black slaves, and whites owned white slaves. In other words, slavery was integrated.
*
Once upon a time when I was a loudmouth smart-ass know-it-all I couldn’t understand those who took a sudden dislike at me. Now I don’t understand those who liked me.
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

It must definately feel satisfying to make your readers think twice about issues they've learned to dogmatically accept.

That fraction of a second of feeling uncomfortable still has a very profound effect on their future judgement. When we are confident about our knowledge, we've just reached a dead end. Feelings of discomfort are just what the doctor ordered.

i do hope you are right.
but i am less optimistic.
for 1500 years our writers have tried to enlighten our leadership and its dupes and things have been going downhill.
more divisions, more corruption, more incompetence, and more victims....