notes / comments

[freakyfreaky]

Re: notes / comments

I compare Ara to Pat Buchanan.

I don't always agree with what he says, but I like the way he says it - with conviction and without fear and appreciate his right to say it.

He's obviously far more well read and literate than the majority of the diaspora.

[Virgil]

Re: notes / comments

I compare Ara to Pat Buchanan.

I don't always agree with what he says, but I like the way he says it - with conviction and without fear and appreciate his right to say it.

He's obviously far more well read and literate than the majority of the diaspora.

You can compare him to Jesus Christ, but if he can not defend his ideas and they are trash then he is a first, a coward, and second, worthless. At least with Pat Buchanan his rhetiric is consistent and, in the "grand scheme of things", Buchanan has a agenda. Lastly, to empower a man because "he's obviously far more well read and literate" means absolutly nothing, my dog is well read compared to other dogs, he knows how to speak two languages, does that mean he should have "authority" over other dogs? Absolutly not. In fact, the last point you made means slightly something else, you are trying to indirectly "imply" that because his critics are not as "well read" then we should not test his ideas? What kind of illogic is this? The reality is this, reading more books and not putting to use any idea or not acting on any of your own ideas is as good as being illeteriate. I may have not read the entire catalog at Alexanderia such as Ara, but I have a thousand times more commen sense. What shocks me is how Armenians try to defend the very same entity that has historically done nothing for them but take their selfless national heroes and turn them into self-rightous cowards. Ara Baliozian talks as if every "Jack Nahapetian" owes him something, when he has been sitting in front a typewriter (And now a computer) for the last 72 years doing absolutly nothing but commenting on the proactivness of other Armenians, both contemporary figures and historical heroes.

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Sunday, December 23, 2007
**********************************************
HUMBUG
*****************
One of my gentle and anonymous readers, whose spelling leaves something to be desired, takes me to task for my ignorance of our history. “Armenian history,” he reminds me, “is an extremely complex topic,” and since I obviously do not know as much as he does, I should shut up about it. I am more than willing to concede that I don’t know all there is to know on the subject. But then who does, beside the Good Lord Himself, who so far has consistently refused to publish His version. As far as I know, no human being has ever dared to claim that after a lifetime of study he is now prepared to assert that he knows all there is to know about Armenian or any other history.
*
When after a lifetime of study Toynbee published his monumental ten-volume STUDY OF HISTORY, he was attacked and sometimes even verbally abused by an international array of historians who questioned the accuracy of his facts and the reliability of his conclusions. Dutch historians criticized him for his ignorance of Dutch history; xxxish historians tore him to shreds because he had dared to call xxxs “fossils”; English historians dismissed him as a megalomaniacal mystic and charlatan; and Soviet historians treated him as a heretic because he did not share their faith in Marxism. It would be no exaggeration to say that both Spengler and Toynbee, the two greatest historians of the 20th century, have more critics than fans among their fellow historians.
*
Even when they deal in facts and nothing but facts, nationalist or ideologically committed historians lie because they select only those facts that support their particular thesis, and since the number of facts, documents, and eyewitness accounts is nearly infinite, they can do this without much difficulty.
*
Who takes nationalist historians seriously? Only themselves, their dupes, and the power structure within which they operate.
*
What matters about history is not how much we know or how many facts, documents, and eyewitness accounts we have at our disposal, but what have we learned from it. What have our nationalist or patriotic historians learned from our past? The very same thing that Turkish historians have learned: namely, to paint themselves all white and their adversaries all black.
*
History does not have to be the propaganda of the victor or the consolation of the loser. Our sympathies may be with the losers but that does not make their version of events more honest, objective, and impartial.
*
The aim of nationalist historians is not to learn but to teach. But teaching that is not preceded by learning is at best propaganda and at worst conditioning or brainwashing. Politics and history don’t mix. To allow politics or ideology to contaminate the study of history amounts to prostituting the past.
*
A final note on our revolutionaries: history judges us not by our intentions (remember the old adage: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”) but our actions; and actions have consequences. It follows, we should judge our revolutionaries not by their intentions but by the tragic consequences of their actions.
#

[jgk3]

Re: notes / comments

I don't always agree with what he says, but I like the way he says it - with conviction and without fear and appreciate his right to say it.

I agree. Of course, his words are very controversial to nationalists, but that doesn't change this.

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Monday, December 24, 2007
*************************************************
“I AM NOT A CROOK”
****************************************
If bad things happen to good people, let us ask ourselves:
How good are we?
How good are our “brainless leaders”? (Avedik Issahakian).
How good are their dupes who believe we never had it so good because we are in good hands?
How good are the alienated who stay away from Armenian affairs? How good are the assimilated who have given up on us?
How good are our “best and brightest” who so far have failed to convince the world that our genocide is not a figment of our collective imagination?
How good are our intellectuals from Khorenatsi and Yeghishe (5th century) to Zarian and Massikian (in our own days) who have been unanimous in saying our leaders can’t even lead a dog to the nearest hydrant?
How good are our intellectuals and why should be believe them?
Well, what choice do we have? It’s either them or our politicians?
Are politicians capable of speaking the truth when they speak about themselves?
By the way, I don’t agree with Avedik Issahakian. Our leaders are not brainless. After all, they were brainy enough to have a plan B for themselves.
Believe in God, if you must, but believe no one else. Use your brain instead (if you will forgive the overstatement), and may the Good Lord have mercy on your soul (if you have one).
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Tuesday, December 25, 2007
*********************************************
NOTES & COMMENTS
****************************************
To those of my readers who disagree with me, sometimes violently, I say: I hear you. I feel your pain. Once upon a time I too was brainwashed to think, or rather to feel, as you do. To learn to think, to think for oneself, which also means to think against oneself, is a painfully slow process. It takes time. Be patient with yourself and tolerant with those who try to reason with you. Evolution is a law of nature. Never say therefore you will not change, for that way lies stagnation, degeneration, and death.
*
Instead of saying, the great powers deceived us, we should ask, why did we behave like dupes? Instead of saying the Turks massacred us, we should ask ourselves, why did we surrender our fate into their hands for 600 years?
*
A man who is convinced he knows everything he needs to know is a case of arrested underdevelopment.
*
The more you deceive yourself the more transparent you become to others.
*
If you know 100 things and claim to know 101, sooner or later someone is sure to expose you as an ignoramus.
#
##

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Thursday, December 27, 2007
**************************************************
POLITICS 101
*****************************
A regime, any regime, even a regime of swine, will have its supporters.
*
In America today only 50% of the people vote. When asked why he doesn’t vote, a wise man once replied: “I don’t believe in encouraging them.”
*
One thing I have learned about my fellow Armenians and myself: We are human beings like the rest of mankind. Anyone who says we are better is either a brown-noser or a damn fool.
*
Propaganda teaches us to overestimate ourselves and to underestimate our adversaries, which promotes the view that our leaders are shepherds and their leaders butchers. But then, where would butchers be without shepherds?
*
If we are what we have become it’s because of liars whose favorite sport is the blame-game.
*
Self-assessed smart Armenians will never agree with me because agreeing with me would amount to admitting they are fools who have been taken in by liars.
*
After calling them “enemies of the people,” fascist leaders silence their critics. It is always the same story. After confusing fact with fiction they commit unspeakable crimes against humanity with the full support of their dupes. This may explain why there are people today (not all of them Turks) who believe Talaat was a great leader and his victims traitors who deserved their fate. This may also explain why some of the greatest butchers in the history of mankind, from Caligula and Nero to Stalin and Hitler, had their supporters.
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

Friday, December 28, 2007
*************************************************
THEORY & PRACTICE
***********************************
The combined wisdom of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle has been wasted on the Greeks. Greek history is a disaster area. The divided city-states of Greece were at each other’s throats for centuries until they were conquered and mongrelized by, among others, the Turks.
What remains of Buddha’s wisdom in countries like India, China, Korea, and Japan? Mostly superstition and ritual (for more details, see Arthur Koestler’s THE LOTUS & THE ROBOT).
Individual wisdom does not always translate to political know-how for a very simple reason: the pursuit of wisdom and greed for power are mutually exclusive concepts and antagonistic movements from which greed for power will invariably emerge the winner.
*
Because I share my understanding, I have become an enemy. A fool will reserve his agreement for men who tell him what he already knows and understands. That’s because, as a fool, he doesn’t understand that knowledge is an endless search.
*
If straight talk offends you, who is to blame but your ego?
*
Speaking of theory and practice, I read the following headline in our paper this morning: “Hindu Hardliners burn Christian churches, Christians retaliate and burn Hindu homes.”
#

[jgk3]

Re: notes / comments

Speaking of theory and practice, I read the following headline in our paper this morning: “Hindu Hardliners burn Christian churches, Christians retaliate and burn Hindu homes.”
#

really? wow. Where?

[arabaliozian]

Re: notes / comments

really? wow. Where?

in India.