Exploring
the Inexorable Constellation of Kemal Ataturk
A tribute in loving
memory …
Contents
I. Several 20th-century
Statesmen
II. What it takes to be
a Statesman
III. The Dreadful
Disaster that Kemal Ataturk averted
IV. Kemal Ataturk
compared to Several Western Statesmen
V. Who was the Real,
Historical Kemal Ataturk?
VI. Kemal Ataturk &
Lenin: today's Islamists are closer to Lenin
VII. Kemal Ataturk,
Islamic Spirituality, and the Secular Nature of the Islamic State
VIII. Kemal Ataturk and
the Origins of his Spirituality: an Embarrassment for All Western States and
Secret Societies
IX. Kemal Ataturk and
the Nature of his Accomplishments
X. Kemal Ataturk's
Everlasting Legacy and Turkey's Betrayers
A – The Islamists
B – The Pan-Turanianists
C – The Kemalists
Many people consider
Hitler as the world's greatest 20th-century statesman, but the Führer (1889-1945)
was still fighting when almost the entire territory of his earlier expanded
country was already invaded by foreign armies; if we don't take into
consideration the factors 'failure', 'results', 'endurance', 'posterity' and
'legacy' when evaluating statesmen, then eventually anyone of them could be
described as 'the world's greatest statesman'.
I.
Several 20th-century Statesmen
Hitler's legacy was
rejected in his own country by means of military victory of his enemies, and
Germany remains still occupied by World War II's victorious allies 75 years
after Hitler's disappearance. This is not an example to follow.
Others show a
predilection for an array of Communist theorists and dictators, finally selecting
one of them as the world's greatest 20th-century statesman: Lenin (1870-1924),
Stalin (1878-1953), Mao (1893-1976) or even Fidel Castro (1916-2016). The
differences among these undoubtedly influential personalities are great, but
none of them left enduring state structures, although all of them marked their
times with tumult. Lenin's theory about the dictatorship of the proletariat was
swept away by his successor; Stalin's appalling practices had nothing to do
with anything written by Marx, Engels, Lenin and many other theorists whose
either incomprehensible or debased concepts fascinated mostly those who never
understood them; thank God, Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971; Никита Сергеевич
Хрущёв) terminated that lethal legacy. And today, 29 years after the fall of
the Soviet Union, only the inhuman paranoids of today's totally corrupt
American Left attempt to revive a most farcical version of those statesmen's
worthless concepts and absurd theories that evidently disfigured and calamitously
destroyed Russia.
Only 44 years after his
death, Mao (毛泽东) has almost no place, even as a
picture, on the walls of Zhongnanhai (中南海),
the Chinese Imperial Gardens that became the headquarters of the Communist
Party of China (中國共產黨), and on the walls of the central
government (State Council). Memorabilia from an almost totally forgotten past,
the hammer and sickle are by now amiable decorative themes for participants to
watch every five years in the otherwise meaningless and ceremonial, national
congresses of the CPC. In all of these cases of statesmen, legacy is tantamount
to irreverence.
Several other
20th-century statesmen are still revered for the political marketing needs of
the decayed states of Western Europe and North America: Roosevelt (1882-1945),
Churchill (1874-1965) or even the picturesque and tragi-comical figure of Charles
de Gaulle (1890-1970). Since the needs for this deceptive propaganda are
related to today's politics, one realizes quasi-automatically that these
personalities are still referred to by the criminal forgers of the Western
World's mainstream media and by the various representatives of the lawless
regimes of the West only for the commemoration of the 20th century's most
nefarious and most disastrous event, i.e. the allied victory in 1945. But for
the outright majority of the Mankind, these nonexistent statesmen, who were
mere caretakers in times of war, are totally insignificant or rather unknown.
In fact, they left no legacy, because their deeds had nothing ingenious,
nothing innovative, and nothing inventive.
There were certainly
important statesmen during the 20th c., but it would be absurd to consider as
great statesman someone who either introduced catastrophic innovations or viewed
his tenure as a mere service to the cause of an immoral and inhuman regime's
continuity – and this is the type of regime that prevailed in England, the
United States, and France during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Neither
can a statesman be viewed as great, if his deeds impacted negatively or even
disastrously vast parts of the world. In this sense, Georges Clémenceau
(1841-1929), Lloyd George (1863-1945), and Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) were as
disastrous and as ominous as Hitler or Stalin, because, due to their deeds,
practices, choices and decisions, more people were either involved in
unnecessary strives, rebellions, battles, and wars or oppressed and persecuted,
killed and massacred in Asia, Africa and Europe than those persecuted or killed
by the aforementioned German and Soviet statesmen. However, for the needs of
generation comparison, one must admit that the three Western statesmen of World
War I were ostensibly superior to their WWII counterparts.
II.
What it takes to be a Statesman
All accounts made, a
remarkable statesman must
i- accurately discern
the environment in which he finds himself, see the past and the recent
developments in perspective, and identify exactly where they lead to, if no
other factors intervene and no effective reaction is undertaken,
ii- dissociate himself
from a flawed, immoral, hypocritical, tyrannical, and nefarious regime,
iii- identify the real,
diachronic values of his culture and land, act accordingly, and eventually
reinstate them,
iv- demonstrate virtue
as per the terms of his nation's historical traditions and moral values,
v- become known for his
ingenious choices, decisions and practices,
vi- deliver innovative
and inventive approaches to the needs of his society,
vii- defend, promote,
consolidate and expand national identity and cultural integrity,
viii- found, transform
or restructure a state that will be exemplary, enduring and based on Justice,
Equality, Equity, Truthfulness, Solidarity, and Love,
ix- re-organize or
re-engineer his society toward knowledge, wisdom, creativity, productivity,
equilibrium and tolerance,
x- promote individual
initiative, amelioration and expansibility, and
xi- be an example in
terms of accurate perception, conceptual and active thinking, self-criticism,
adaptability, and alternative option identification,
III.
The Dreadful Disaster that Kemal Ataturk averted
The search for the
world's greatest statesmen is a quest for human advance. People have the
tendency to turn to sizeable or powerful states in order to identify great
statesmen; that's an extremely wrong practice. Across History, great states
involve basically unimportant rulers; the great sovereigns are an exception in
the great states. Either in a small or big country, a great statesman is
certainly someone, who can go against the stream, stop the decay, and reverse
the trend. And this is exactly what Kemal Ataturk did to the Ottoman Empire,
which was abandoned for Türkiye Cumhuriyeti (Republic of Turkey) to rise
totally unrelated to, and absolutely unaffected by, the otherwise agonizing
caliphate's burdens, crimes, errors and decadence.
Even among Turkey's
most enthusiastic admirers and supporters of Kemal Ataturk, today many fail to
realize that, without Kemal Ataturk, the entire territory of Turkey would be
divided into many parts, which would be annexed and administered by either
local elites 'educated' (i.e. taught how to hate their own land and those of
the neighbors) in Western capitals or the criminal colonial regimes of the West
that were setup by the historical enemies of Anatolia (i.e. the fake Popes of
Rome, the Franks and the Anglo-Normans) as per below:
a) a part of Western
Anatolia, Eastern Thrace, and Constantinople (in that case not Istanbul
anymore) for Greece,
b) a part of Eastern
Anatolia from Kars and Rize down to Malatya for Armenia,
c) a northeastern part
of Anatolia for a minor coastal Pontus state,
d) a southeastern part
of Anatolia for a multinational (Zaza, Turkmen, Kurmanji, Aramaean Christian,
Arabic-speaking, and Yazidi) state fallaciously called "Kurdistan"
(which would be plunged into interminable strife, war, oppression and
massacres),
e) a minor southern
part (Antioch/Antakya) that would be disastrously placed under French colonial
rule, and
f) another southern
part (from Mersin to Bodrum) under Italian mandate.
Even worse, the rest of
the territory, i.e. the Central Anatolian plateau of Cappadocia (which means
ca. 25% of today's Turkey's territory), would be deliberately plunged into
incessant strives and civil wars generated by the colonial powers, which would greatly
utilize all the idiotic Muslim theologians, ignorant muftis, uneducated cadis, uncultured
sheikhs and lunatic imams for their colonial plans that all these cretins had
no chance in a billion to possibly identify, let alone oppose (as it happened
in the case of so many French and English colonies in Africa and Asia). Therefore,
an enormous ethnic cleansing, an atrocious genocide, and a real Christian
Reconquista in Anatolia would ensue (if Kemal Ataturk did not appear as a deus
ex machina), totally changing the face of the wider region between Italy and
Iran, which was at the time another great Islamic empire (under the Qajar
dynasty) at the brink of total collapse and disintegration, just like the
Ottoman Empire.
All this was prevented
only because of Kemal Ataturk.
IV.
Kemal Ataturk compared to Several Western Statesmen
Through another
viewpoint and in comparison with the other three great European monarchies that
collapsed in the aftermath of WWI, the founder of Modern Turkey
i) first, managed to save
the inhabitants of the parts of the Ottoman Empire that he controlled, namely
he achieved to
a) thwart the colonial
invasion, which would be disguised under the lawless and criminal name of
'Mandate',
b) liberate the people
from the burden of the past and from the darkness and the ignorance of the
Ottoman Empire, which had already fallen in decay since the end of the 16th c.
(date in which the Islamic Civilization ended),
c) rescue the people
from the absurd and paranoid pseudo-Islamic theology of the Istanbulite
indoctrinated ulemas, and
d) fully rehabilitate
and empower the people, thus making them able to compete at the international
level – in striking contrast with what happened in backward Syria, Iraq, Egypt,
Yemen, Algeria, etc. whereby the compact imposition of Western colonialism
triggered all the chaotic reactions that ended up with Islamic terrorism. and
ii) second, ensured
that all the inhabitants of Modern Turkey avoided the following disastrous
conditions that befell on Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary:
a) the unprecedented
persecution, the inhuman slavery, and the incredible horrors and hecatombs that
the criminal ruling minority of Soviet Union reserved for all the populations
of Czarist Russia that were not lucky enough to have the destiny of the Baltic
states and other western extremities of the Romanov realm,
b) the descent into the
nether world that the Germans have experienced, after the departure of Kaiser
and until today, because Germany is still not an independent state, because the
country has been governed by an alien elite, which consists of puppets of the
Allied Occupation, and for this reason, this elite does not express in any
sense, let alone defend, the German national interests, and
c) the irrevocable
pulverization of Austria-Hungary {which was dismembered and its territory was
distributed into twelve (12) states (as of today), after the lawless treaties
of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) and Trianon (1920): Italy (Tyrol), Slovenia,
Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine, Czechia, Slovakia,
Poland, Hungary and Austria.
In other words, Kemal
Ataturk's Turkey did not experience
- either the massacres
and the destructions that took place in Germany (1919-2020) and Russia
(1917-1991)
- or the fragmentation
that was imposed on Austria-Hungary after 1919.
Similarly with the
territories lost to Austria, the Ottoman lands robbed by the colonial powers
(namely today's Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, and UAE) constituted the majority of the Ottoman territory;
however, in striking difference with the Central European monarchy, the
territories lost for the Sublime Porte (باب عالی /
Bab-i Ali) were insignificant, marginal, and to large extent, they were empty
deserts.
Kemal Ataturk died in
Istanbul at 9:05 am of Thursday, 10 November 1938. How symbolic! How
impressively does it highlight the diametrically opposed world concepts of
Ataturk and Hitler! In fact, Ataturk died after the terrible Kristallnacht was
over! Since then 82 years have passed.
If the legacies of
Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are by now extinct, rejected and mostly reviled,
can one claim that the political heritage left by either the WWI generation of
colonial statesmen (Georges Clémenceau, Lloyd George, and Woodrow Wilson) or
their WWII counterparts (Roosevelt, Churchill and Charles de Gaulle) has
survived?
Although today's
Western countries and sociopolitical elite pretend to represent a continuity of
sociopolitical, economic, intellectual and academic tradition, in reality they serve
purposes, they believe theories, they diffuse delusions, they promote
practices, and they implement agendas that are at the antipodes of the world as
conceived, desired and respected by both earlier generations of Western
statesmen.
Despite their fake
claims that they respect freedom of speech, today's Western statesmen prohibit
free speech and penalize everyone, who denies the falsehood of the so-called
Holocaust and the forgery of the so-called Armenian Genocide. At the same time,
they conceal other, real (i.e. planned) and worse genocides, like the Oromo
Genocide carried out by the Amhara Abyssinians in Eastern Africa over the past
150 years and the Turanian Genocide carried out in Russia over the past 450
years, after the Muscovite expansion undertaken by Ivan IV the Terrible (Иван
Грозный). The Western World's bogus-'freedom of speech' means that you demand 'freedom'
for the 'Kurds' (who are not one nation, but many different nations, namely
Kurmanji, Zazaki, Bahdinani, Yazidi, Shabak, Sorani, Gorani, Faili, Ahl-e Haq,
Hawrami, Ardalani, etc.), but not for France's oppressed and persecuted
nations, i.e. the Basks, the Corsicans, the Catalans, the Occitans, the
Alsatians and the Bretons.
Due to grave distortion
of concepts, total disregard of values, and absolute perversion of connotation,
Western European bogus-freedom ended up in criminal acts (abortion), abnormal
practices (homosexual marriages), and corruptive operations (adoption of
children by homosexual 'couples').
Gender-based linguistic
tyranny and demented dogmatism, mainstream media dictatorship, social media
degeneration, lifestyle debasement, educational degradation, and finance
capitalism laced with the idiotic Modern Monetary Theory brought fourth
destructive conditions of socioeconomic-sociopolitical life that would have
been totally denounced as defective, nefarious and inhuman by all the
aforementioned Western statesmen of the 20th c.
In other words, today's
West has nothing to do with early 20th c.'s West anymore, and the above
mentioned WWI and WWII statesmen's heritage is null and void.
Contrarily to the
Soviet Union and to Nazi Germany, Kemal Ataturk's Turkey still survives;
contrarily to the morally degenerated Western European and North American
states and societies, Kemal Ataturk's Turkey demonstrated impressive resistance
to social corruption, lifestyle decay, and cultural decomposition; and
contrarily to today's China, Kemal Ataturk's Turkey did not shift from Mao's
version of Communism to the mixed socialist market economy that Xi Jinping (1953-;
习近平) has successfully managed to keep
in balance.
But has Kemal Ataturk's
legacy survived?
V.
Who was the Real, Historical Kemal Ataturk?
Kemal Ataturk was not a
man of theories, ideas, and words; he was a man of action, deeds and effective
practicality. Many theorists and ideologists wanted and tried to implement
concepts and ideas; but their effort ended up in monstrous deliveries about
which all realized that they were at astronomical distance from the original
thought. Contrarily to the delusional theories of these ominous persons and to
their calamitous implementations, there was never a theory or ideology such as
"Kemalism".
Kemal Ataturk did not
write a treatise, did not compose any theory, and did not elaborate an ideology
about
- how 20th c. Muslims
can best organize their societies and establish a pertinent system of
governance that will enable them to fully compete with the world's leading
states,
- the way Turkic
nations can achieve national independence, comprehend historical identity, preserve
cultural integrity, set up a fully functional and efficient system of
governance, and establish an interstate organization, and
- the method through
which Anatolia would synchronize with Western Europe and North America in the
early 20th c.
He wanted only to
exactly implement the correct solution to an urgent problem that would become
lethal to vast populations: the problem's name was 'Ottoman Empire'.
As a matter of fact,
Kemal Ataturk did not act based on text, program, ideology or theory, and if we
refer to his early conceptualization of a state and to its ultimate
implementation of the concept, we soon understand there is no such distance as
the chaos that separates Marx's theory from Lenin's adaptation of Marxism or
even the enormous space between Lenin's published works in the 1900s or 1910s and
Lenin's newly proclaimed state in early 1924.
Only 19.5 years
separate Kemal Ataturk's death from his start as a statesman (his disembarkment
in Samsun: 19 May 1919 – 10 November 1938); but if one compares his early
speeches and the condition to which Turkey was risen few months before the
Halâskâr Gazi ('the victorious savior') died, one concludes that the founder of
Turkey delivered exactly what he promised. This testifies to an exceptional
foresight in terms of both, human nature and human society. Ataturk understood
in full depth the human being at the personal level, namely how humans
function, act, perform and react; and at the same time, he realized very well
the human being at the collective level, namely the way human communities tend
to behave, operate, produce, create and eventually destroy their own deeds and
achievements.
There is a key point of
differentiation: contrarily to all theorists, ideologists and intellectuals,
who rose to power, Ataturk knew exactly where each and every of his decisions
was leading to. As personal qualification, this outstanding trait can be
attributed to both, an innate talent and the formation of a military. Ataturk
was the Geometer of Governance.
Ali Rıza oğlu Mustafa
(as his original name was back in 1881) graduated from the Ottoman Military
College (Istanbul) in 1905 and started then his legendary military career that brought
him to the four corners of the Ottoman Empire, before making of him the great
hero of Gallipoli in the portentous Battle of Çanakkale that Western
historiographers rather call 'the Dardanelles campaign'. Leading the Ottoman
5th Army (along with Enver Pasha and the German General Otto von Sanders), the
then Mustafa Kemal Bey prevailed over the worldwide colonial military elite,
namely the English Ian Hamilton, Herbert Kitchener, John de Robeck, William
Birdwood, and Winston Churchill, and the French Henri Gouraud and Maurice
Bailloud some of whom were more than 30 years older than him, therefore having
enormously richer experience at the battlefield. Without a unique talent of
foremost exactness of movement, Mustafa Kemal Bey would have lost the battle or
even been killed.
However, the innate vocation
of the young Ali Rıza oğlu Mustafa became evident quite earlier, notably when
he enrolled at the Ottoman Military Academy (1899), and even earlier, when at
the age of 15 (in 1896) he enrolled in the Monastir Military High School
(today's Bitola in Macedonia). His inclination toward exactness, practicality,
effectiveness and discipline was however demonstrated as early as 1893, when at
the age of 12, he took the entrance exam for the Salonica Military School (Selanik
Askeri Rüştiyesi).
Of all the other
personalities suggested as the world's greatest 20th-century statesman, only
Charles de Gaulle was a career military. These people remind us at times of the
great conquerors of past historical periods; their world perception is such
that they believe utterly that their deeds and achievements speak for
themselves. In this regard, Kemal Ataturk is far closer to Timur (Tamerlane),
to Genghis Khan, to Caesar, to Alexander, to Darius I the Great, and other
earlier great Oriental monarchs.
These people never view
life as related to human theories, baseless ideologies, arbitrary doctrines,
useless thoughts, or circumstantial feelings and desires; these people live at
a spiritually much higher level. They have -due to their intuition, education,
traditions and culture- a well-structured conceptualization of the world and an
accurate perception of the existing balance of power and of their abilities;
then, they set their absolutely realistic targets of action and they deploy
their maximum effort to achieve them. Last, to the aforementioned, they add
their energy, practicality, resourcefulness, persistence and commitment.
VI.
Kemal Ataturk & Lenin: today's Islamists are closer to Lenin
Contrarily to Lenin's
action, which was a mere translation of his unrealistic theories and dogmatic ideology,
Kemal Ataturk set his targets and tried to achieve them in the easiest and
shortest way. Practicality involves automatically a realistic and accurate approach
to and evaluation of every situation. Many opponents attempted to denigrate
Kemal Ataturk as an opportunist, but this is irrelevant, because opportunism is
related to theories, ideologies and efforts of materializing them. The
difference between Lenin and Kemal Ataturk already at the start was tremendous.
Lenin wanted to
eliminate the czarist establishment, because of his own theory and ideology. Lenin
did not consider the czarist monarchy as impossible to improve and unable to
catch up with the rest of the great powers; simply he did not want the
monarchical system to improve, because he became captive of the theory about
the dictatorship of the so-called proletariat (a nonexistent, arbitrarily
formulated, entity), which he inherited from Marx and later expanded.
Quite contrarily, Kemal
Ataturk wanted to improve, empower and strengthen his country; he simply knew
that the Ottoman Caliphate was an impotent and obsolete institution, which -because
of many reasons- was ostensibly damaging the future and the potentialities of
its inhabitants, while at the same time, it was totally impossible to rectify
and ameliorate. In fact, the Ottoman Empire was a dead corpse that needed merely
to be buried; because of its own numerous inadequacies, misperceptions, misconceptions,
malpractices, mistakes, and catastrophic inadaptability, the Sublime Porte had
become the Gate of the Hell for its unfortunate inhabitants.
Due to prevailing
theological rigidity, doctrinal sterility, social counter-productivity,
intellectual enslavement, and economic impotence, the state of the sultans and
caliphs had reached its end - already long before Mustafa Kemal was born. But
Kemal Ataturk pursued his targets and fought for his cause, without theorizing
about the forthcoming end of the Caliphate. When a significant part of Kemal
Ataturk's targets were already materialized (1923), it became evident to all
that the Caliphate was already part of the past.
If one clearly
understands the colossal difference between the empty and unwise theoretician
and the experienced and high-calibered military officer, one easily comprehends
how divergent their respective systems and methods of governance were. When his
theories proved unrealistic, Lenin was forced to start improvising; and he did
so constantly and in desperate search of a success that would never come. Quite
contrarily, Kemal Ataturk did not have to advance "one step forward, two
steps back" (шаг вперёд, два шага назад) like Lenin, but he went ahead
like an experienced military who knows the terrain.
This clarifies the
present situation very well: today's Islamists are closer to Lenin than to Ataturk.
By being totally deprived of any sense (let alone practice) of Spirituality, by
incessantly desecrating a religion that they never understood and which they
currently ideologize as a Modern European political ideology, all groups of
Islamists only distort a cultural heritage that they never felt, studied or
comprehended. So, all of them, without understanding Kemal Ataturk's
conceptualization of the world, targets, achievements and legacy, renounce
hysterically his deeds and exploits.
In fact, they are
merely theorizing (like Lenin did), while being totally disconnected from the
down-to-earth reality. If they were able one day to get absolute power, they
would destroy Turkey in months, if not weeks. Czarist Russia and the disastrous
consequences of the October revolution are a very good example indeed.
Similarly, if Kemal Ataturk's Turkey were to end, immediately civil war, famine,
massacres, and chaos would ensue, not because of other powers' inimical stance to
Islam (which is the typical Islamist excuse) but due to the Islamists'
absolutely unrealistic targets, ignorance and paranoia.
Extremists of both
sides, Islamists and atheists alike, have constructed a fictional Kemal Ataturk
against whom they have made of sorts of nonsensical reproaches and to whom they
have attributed all types of lies and distortions. Kemal Ataturk was not a
historian or a historian of religions, but he knew briefly and very accurately
the History of Islamic Caliphates, the Islamic search for Spirituality, the
decomposition of the Islamic religion across the centuries, its degradation
into a worthless and purely shameless theological system whose often evil proponents
were able to 'justify' all monstrous deeds of ignorant, inhuman and criminal
caliphs, sultans and shahs. The utilization of the religion of Prophet Muhammad
for the material and often monstrous purposes of governance had become an
extremely lenthy and absolutely nauseating story.
Today's pathetic
sheikhs, imams and theologians are illiterate enough to think that Knowledge,
Understanding, Perception and Wisdom need volumes of endless texts to be
achieved; this quantitative approach is a subtly and imperceptibly formed misthought
of materialistic nature that can easily destroy the Mankind. Supreme human
wisdom, accurate perception, deep understanding, and creative knowledge pertain
to Truth; only a qualitative approach to them allows humans to plainly attain
them. One man spends 100 years in the study of 100000 volumes and learns
nothing substantive, whereas another man during one initiation that lasts only few
hours learns much more; and a third man in a momentary intuition gets an
otherwise unreachable perception and overview of the spiritual and material
reality. Real wisdom is a transcendental faculty, not a mental-material(istic)
apperception, and this is so, because the mind is part of the body and
therefore totally unrelated to the soul of a man.
VII.
Kemal Ataturk, Islamic Spirituality, and the Secular Nature of the Islamic
State
Kemal Ataturk did not
reject Islam, but the petty and worthless Ottoman evildoing in the name of
Islam. As early as March 1924, at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (Türkiye
Büyük Millet Meclisi), he meaningfully stated:
The
religion of Islam will be elevated, if it will cease to be a political
instrument, as had been the case in the past.
It is very clear,
through this brief sentence that, as per Kemal Ataturk's personal evaluation
and understanding, Islam had been degraded into mere theological fornication;
there can never be a discussion about "elevation", if something has
not been degraded first.
Two days after Kemal Ataturk
said this sentence, the degraded and God-damned Islamic Caliphate was finally
abolished (3 March 1924), after having already shrunk into a wrinkled territory
accommodating (in the early 20th century) less than 5% of the world's Muslims,
due to the decadence and the impotence of its worthless sultans and to the deplorable
ignorance and the evil dementia of its clueless sheikhulislams.
In total contradiction
to the false theories and the historical distortions propagated today by Western
Orientalists and pseudo-Muslim Islamists alike, Kemal Ataturk knew that there
is a vast difference between spirituality and religion, and that Islamic spirituality
prevailed many times over Islamic theology throughout History, thus changing
the character of the Islamic states, re-orienting them toward creativity,
inventiveness, originality and expressiveness in any field, from sciences to
arts to wisdom. Under those circumstances, which occurred in many different
historical periods (from the Abbasids to the Buyids, the Seljuk, the Ilkhanate,
the Timurids, the Safavids, and the Mughal to name a few), the real nature of
the Islamic states was secular, because the Shariah was not interpreted
literally as per the modern pseudo-Muslim Islamists' manner; then in these
cases, the Islamic Law was stated and recommended, but not imposed.
And indeed, Kemal
Ataturk's state was not the first secular Muslim state; however this topic is
vast and goes beyond the limits of the present article. How Kemal Ataturk envisioned
the state that would substitute the decadent caliphate, which were his sources
of inspiration, and on what past traditions of Spirituality he was based in
order to materialize his targets we can understand only when we focus on and
study in-depth
- his formative years,
- his relationship with
the great German mystic Rudolf von Sebottendorf (who had recovered earlier lost
keys of Bektashi-Qizilbash Spirituality, and also the rites of other earlier Islamic
and Oriental Orders),
- his total opposition
to the Freedom and Accord Party (Hürriyet ve İtilâf Fırkası),
and
- his resolute distance
from the new CUP (Committee of Union and Progress; İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti
/ إتحاد
و ترقى جمعيتی)
leadership (the 'three pashas').
However, all these
topics have long remained taboo in Turkey and worldwide for various reasons.
The true presentation, in-depth analysis, and correct interpretation of the
aforementioned contacts and positions of Kemal Ataturk are by definition an
embarrassment for today's Turkey's main political entities, namely
- the Islamists, who -evoking
but misinterpreting the Ottoman History- represent a theoretical and
ideological background that the last Ottomans totally rejected and fully repudiated
as heretic,
- the Pan-Turanianists, who constitute the
direct offspring of the CUP (the three pashas), and
- the Kemalists, who
for many long decades obscured Kemal Ataturk's concepts, targets, practices and
heritage in order to subtly misinterpret them, adjust them to their own
interests and needs, and in the process, rule in his name, but in a most
opposite manner to his.
VIII.
Kemal Ataturk and the Origins of his Spirituality: an Embarrassment for All
Western States and Secret Societies
At the same time, the
true presentation, analysis and interpretation of the aforementioned contacts
and positions of Kemal Ataturk are an embarrassment for today's Western regimes
and the (severely conflicting with one another) forces, lobbies, secret
societies, and various Orders that control and use governments and states,
namely
1- the Zionists (all
the different branches and groups), who identify in Kemal Ataturk's concept of
state (so, not exactly today's Turkey) the only powerful state able to resume
worldwide prevalence. All branches and groups of Zionism reviled Rudolf von
Sebottendorf's spiritual supremacy, because its results would cancel once for
all their power and targets. For this reason, they asked the help of the
Apostate Freemasonic Lodge, which is one of their allies, to disastrously disentangle
Rudolf von Sebottendorf's young disciple Adolf Hitler from his master's
authority in the early 1920s: if the German novice were to be effectively
initiated, like the great Turkish Bektashi mystic, Germany would become a
totally different empire and no other state would be able to oppose Berlin. In
brief, Zionists were the cause of the catastrophe that befell on them.
2- the Fake Freemasons
of various pseudo-rites that operate at the antipodes of the original
Freemasonry, which after the mid-1930s has operated in a most surreptitious
manner, pending the anticipated fracture, demolition and disappearance of both,
the Fake Freemasons and the Zionists. These fake Freemasons operated against
Rudolf von Sebottendorf in the 1920s, infiltrated Thule Gesellschaft that he
had founded, totally distorted the rite and the works of the society, forcing
the founder to leave and leading the novices, the disciples and the other
members to the materialistic dementia of Nazism and to the paranoid practices
of that evil political ideology. At this point, one has to recall that the
state founded by Kemal Ataturk involved no politics and no ideology, which are
perverse and inhuman endeavors that degenerate governance and culture.
In this regard, it is
noteworthy that, the various Islamist groups, which operate as low level agents
of either the various groups of Zionists or the different lodges of today's
desecrated Pseudo-Freemasonry, carry out an idiotic propaganda of defamation of
Kemal Ataturk, whom they portray as Freemason, 'Jew' or Dönmeh (i.e. a
Sabbatean crypto-Jew hypocritically converted to Islam; as a matter of fact,
Sabbateans were believed to secretively perform the Kabbalist practices of
Sabbatai Zevi, despite their claim that they were Muslims). All this stands in
total contrast with the historical reality, because Kemal Ataturk closed all
Freemasonic lodges in Turkey (1935), a fact that shows how well informed he was
about the degeneration of most of the world's Freemasonic lodges into
desecrated temples of blasphemous Satanists. Actually, after losing control of
Thule Gesellschaft in Germany, Rudolf von Sebottendorf returned to Turkey and
lived there for some years, before further proceeding to Central Asia and
Tibet.
3- the Jesuits, who
supported to some extent the Pan-Turanianists after having successfully
infiltrated both, Freedom and Accord Party (Hürriyet ve İtilâf Fırkası) and CUP
(Committee of Union and Progress), although the latter had initially been an
outfit of the Fake Freemasonry in the 19th c. Ottoman Empire.
IX.
Kemal Ataturk and the Nature of his Accomplishments
As a brief
commemoration of Kemal Ataturk's groundbreaking, innovative, and resourceful accomplishments,
one must point out the following:
A- Kemal Ataturk accurately
discerned the wider context in which he found himself, assessed his forces, and
identified where his limits were.
Kemal Ataturk did not
advance against the territories of the French and British mandates, not even up
to Haleb (Aleppo) and Mosul, although his vision of state could be fully implemented
in Mesopotamia, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and beyond. Kemal Ataturk realized
that his new state needed time to be re-organized and re-arranged, re-affirmed
and fully homogenized. This understanding and this attitude were also
demonstrated in the case of Caucasus where all the Adjarians, Abkhazians,
Azeris, Circassians, Dagestanis and Chechens would very much welcome a union
with Turkey. And it was also shown as regards Iran, a country that has always
been home to Turanian nations because in reality Iran and Turan have been identical
throughout History.
B- Kemal Ataturk took
gradually distance from his own state.
Seeing the ailing
Ottoman Empire's impotency and proven disability to cope with the imperative
needs of contemporary states, Kemal Ataturk pursued his path and advanced
toward his targets for almost five years (1919-1924), thus fully dissociating
himself from the dying relic. By 1924, the state to which Kemal Ataturk
belonged for most of his life was reduced to just one useless building: the
palace of the last sultan. Compared with the groundbreaking deeds of the liberator
and savior of Anatolia, the state of the family of Othman was a hilarious joke!
C- Kemal Ataturk first
identified the real, diachronic values of the Anatolian Civilization, then acted
accordingly, and finally reinstated all the various Anatolian populations'
shared values.
Kemal Ataturk placed
the diachronic values of the Anatolian Civilization and Culture at the
epicenter of the new, contemporary society and secular state that he
instituted. The Village Institutes (Köy Enstitüleri) were only one of the
methods implemented to educate and update villagers, while also strengthening
their attachment to their common traditions, moral values, and Anatolian
culture. About:
"Darülfünun'dan Köy Enstitülerine" (https://www.ogretmensitemiz.com/egitim/koy-enstituleri-hakkinda-ataturk-ne-diyordu-h6150.html)
"Darülfünun'dan Köy Enstitülerine - 10 kasım 2011 -
www.TurkToresi.com"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L84Ae4lqKns
https://tr. wikipedia.org/wiki/Köy_enstitüsü
and notably:
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köy_enstitüsü#Dersler
(The entry published in
the English Wikipedia is improperly short, particularly distorted, and absolutely
useless, as it deliberately gives readers a minimal idea about the topic, thus
promoting the Islamist agenda that the secret services of the colonial Western
countries have set up.)
D- Kemal Ataturk demonstrated
virtue as per the terms of his nation's historical traditions and moral values.
This approach was highlighted
in the Turkish Constitution of 1923. In the 1924 Constitutional Law Article 2,
Clause 1, the following is stated: Türkiye Devleti, Cümhuriyetçi, milliyetçi,
halkçı, devletçi, lâik ve inkılâpçıdır. Many of the terms used are almost impossible
to easily understand, because they have ostensibly different connotations than
those attested in Western Europe and North America. This becomes very clear in
the definition of the term "milliyetçi" that many political
scientists with no background in History would simply translate as
"nationalism", which is absolutely confusing and totally meaningless.
About:
Milliyetçilik –
this principle has nothing to do with what is called ‘nationalism’ in Central
and Western Europe and North America. In striking opposition to West European
ideologies of racism, race superiority, chauvinism, and nationalism, in Turkey
it was declared that Türkiye ahalisine, din ve ırk farkı gözetilmeksizin
vatandaşlık itibarıyla Türk denilir (irrespective of religion and race
differences, the population of Turkey is called Turkish as regards the
citizenship).
The use of the
term Milliyet in Atatürk’s Turkey and in the Ottoman Empire is completely
different. In structural terms, this word of Persian origin (milliyet) was used
by the founder of Turkey as the word Ummah was used in the very early periods
of the Islamic Caliphate. It involves a supra-national community with a common
history within the same state. And this was said explicitly: ‘ortak mazi,
tarih, ahlak ve hukuk Türk milletini bir araya getiren değerlerdir’ (common
past, history, morality and law are the values that bring together the Turkish nation).
This has nothing to do with the evil notion of racial ethnic identity; it
alludes to cultural ethnic identity.
So, milliyetçilik
means literally ‘supra-national identity founded on land-based communal unity,
shared historicity and integrity of cultural heritage’. This connotation does
not exist anywhere outside Turkey, and this is not a concept particularity but
full evidence of human superiority over the forces of darkness, division and
evilness of today’s inhuman elites.
Few people
understood that it was quite normal for a great mystic like Mustafa Kemal, who
was neither a historian nor a philologist, to have this approach. The constituent
elements of the state that he had already envisioned (as a successive form to
the ailing Ottoman Empire) before 1919 had to encompass many ethnic groups. As
a matter of fact, when Atatürk took full control of Turkey’s territory, it was
still expected that more than a million ethnic ‘Greeks’ (i.e. Romioi – Rumlar)
would be Turkish citizens in the future. It is the Greek side at the Lausanne
Conference that came up with the proposal for the exchange of populations that
took place between Turkey and Greece in 1923-1925.
Furthermore, this
approach to a ‘supra-national identity founded on land-based communal unity,
shared historicity and integrity of cultural heritage’ reflects perfectly well
the Celestial Order of the Oriental Empires, which was the cornerstone of
Rudolf von Sebottendorf’s universal vision of an Imperial State enshrined in
individual spirituality and human welfare as per the Ancient Oriental
Monarchical Model and the Assyrian Sargonid Originality.
Because the 20th
century’s leading German hierophant, and mentor of Kemal Atatürk, Rudolf von
Sebottendorf remains an unknown figure to most, truly few understand the
uniqueness and the truthfulness of Turkey as a conscious supra-nation rightful
heir of more than 20 Oriental and Occidental, northern and southern
civilizations’ achievements and accomplishments. And this was eminently
reflected in Kemal Atatürk’s practices, as he rejected Pan-Turkism and Turanism
as improper falsifications able only to distort the historical reality and plunge
Turkey into chaos.
Turkey was geared
to be the total rejection of the fallacious and unhistorical, racist concept of
racial purity, chauvinism, race superiority, skin color supremacy, colorism and
all the associate, nonsensical and evil constructions.
One can therefore
understand that Hitler’s Germany was at the very antipodes of Atatürk’s
Turkey’s and this is due to the fact that the spiritual exercises and other
practices, the evocations, the divine conceptualization, the revelations of the
Sacred, the initiation rituals, the Spiritual Ontology, the Cosmology, the
Moral Order, the Royal Art, the Weltanschauung, the historical
contextualization, and the admonitions of imperial rule changed totally in the
Thule Gesellschaft after the organization was taken over by Anglo-Saxon fake
Masonry, Zionists and other Satanists.
From:
Turkey & 21st c.
Geopolitics: the Advice I gave to the Turkish Establishment back in the mid-90s
https://www.academia.edu/43110507/Turkey_and_21st_c_Geopolitics_the_Advice_I_gave_to_the_Turkish_Establishment_back_in_the_mid_90s
https://megalommatis.wordpress.com/2018/12/01/turkey-21st-c-geopolitics-the-advice-i-gave-to-the-turkish-establishment-back-in-the-mid-90s/
(notably in the part:
III. Factors that
prevented the Turkish Establishment from timely Disentangling from the ‘Western
bloc’
B. The Real Meaning of
the Six Principles of Kemal Ataturk’s State)
E- Kemal Ataturk became
known for his ingenious choices, decisions and practices.
In this case, the
introduction of the Latin alphabet for the writing of Modern Turkish was a
truly ingenious decision that helped Turks become familiar with the major
European languages and learn them more easily than others do. Suffice it to
compare the German handwritings of a Turk and of an Egyptian or a Yemeni living
in Germany, and one understands immediately how far-reaching Kemal Ataturk's innovations
were. Turks during the 20th and 21st centuries have been more conversant in
European languages than the Arabic speaking people of Asia and North Africa,
despite the fact that Turkey was never colonized, whereas all the former
Ottoman provinces from the Emirates, Oman and Yemen to Eritrea, Abyssinia and
Algeria came under French, English or Italian control (which implied obligatory
courses of the colonizing power's official language in the local primary and
secondary education).
Because of this
differentiation, the Turks have been used to learn foreign languages in order
to cope and compete with the great European powers (Russia, Germany, Italy,
France, England and Spain), whereas all Arabic-speaking people, who were driven
and dehumanized by the psychological complex of inferiority (which is a form of
colonial manipulation and cultural-educational-political maneuvering), have
been hating the languages of their colonial masters and either have not been
learning them at all or have not been learning them properly and impartially (and
this has been done deliberately, out of the hatred which has traditionally been
implanted in the pupils' minds at the primary and secondary education level).
Contrarily to the
Turks, who benefitted from Kemal Ataturk's drastic changes and have an identity,
Arabic-speaking people have no identity at all or have a fake identity, which
is even worse. As a matter of fact, Arabic-speaking people are not Arabs; they belong
to totally different nations with very diverse historical, ethnic and cultural backgrounds
(Aramaeans in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, SE Turkey, SW Iran,
Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates; Copts and Nubians in Egypt; Cushites and Nubians in
Sudan; Berbers in Libya and the Atlas region; Yemenites in South-Southeastern-Eastern
Arabian Peninsula).
Each of these different
nations never managed to achieve a proper and adequate nation-building because
they were all confused with the fake, colonial ideology of Pan-Arabism or Arab
Nationalism. This development generated the chaotic situation that currently prevails
in countries like Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq – in
striking contrast with what happens in Turkey and Iran. About:
https://www.academia.edu/24440061/Arab_Nation_Hoax_Geared_to_Falsify_Islamic_History_Ruin_Varied_Nations_disfiguratively_Named_Arab_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
https://www.academia.edu/25491609/The_Aramaeans_rise_will_transfigure_the_Middle_Eastern_Chessboard_2005_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
https://www.academia.edu/25552905/Islam_the_Cultural_Aramaization_of_the_Arabs_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
https://www.academia.edu/25553198/Aramaeans_vs_Arabs_The_fight_between_Civilization_and_Barbarism_within_Islam_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
https://www.academia.edu/26064731/Why_Former_Ottoman_Provinces_cannot_become_Proper_States_By_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
F-
Kemal Ataturk delivered
innovative and inventive approaches to the needs of his society.
Of course, entire books
have already been published to narrate and analyze the numerous changes
(devrimler) introduced by the founder of Turkey. However, it must be pointed
out that the historical evolution from Caliphate to Cumhuriyet (Republic) was
not just a state transformation or renewal, but an overwhelming replacement.
Kemal Ataturk created his own state, and when the Caliphate could not function
anymore, Turkey as a new state substituted the useless relic of the sultans and
caliphs.
Beyond the
aforementioned, Kemal Ataturk's most seminal, most ingenious and most
trailblazing reversal was the termination of the old, Ottoman capital city and
the proclamation of Ankara as the capital of the new state. The ominous, calamitous
and dire role played for almost 1600 years by Constantinople – Istanbul was
over, and the disastrous, ill-fated and accursed city was thrown once for all
into the abyss of obliterated solipsism. Thanks to the founder of Turkey, the
city that destroyed two great empires was forever condemned to permanently
remain an otiose vestige of the past.
G- Kemal Ataturk defended,
promoted, consolidated and expanded national identity and cultural integrity.
A great number of
people in Turkey and abroad misunderstood Kemal Ataturk's innovations and
considered them all as a form of intentional and comprehensive Westernization
(or Occidentalization). This is actually a grave mistake and a serious
misunderstanding or eventually a purposeful distortion. The founder of Turkey
was neither a Westerner nor a Germanophile (or a Francophile, an Anglophile,
etc.). It is misleading to believe that Ataturk 'admired' the Western progress
or that he was enthusiastic about the Western culture. He simply viewed the
world in pragmatic terms. What does the expression "pragmatic terms"
mean?
This is what all the
Islamists do not want to see, let alone understand. It is however very simple:
in just 400 years, from 1500 to 1900, England, France, and Russia, which were
smaller, weaker in every sense, poorer, less developed, less educated and less
civilized than the Mughal Empire of South Asia, the Safavid Empire of Iran, and
the Ottoman Empire in 1500, expanded and in 1900, became larger, stronger,
richer, more developed, more educated and more civilized than the
aforementioned three Muslim empires. Even worse, the three northern European
states during the said period expanded at the prejudice of the three Muslim
states, dismantling already one of them (the Mughal Empire), dangerously
destabilizing and remarkably reducing the second (Qajar Empire of Iran), and
comfortably and irreversibly decomposing the third (i.e. the Ottoman Empire,
which in 1900 controlled already less than 50% of the territories that it possessed
in 1790). The destruction of the Muslim Empires was so extensive and so detrimental
that it would be suicidal for Muslims to pretend that nothing happened and that
they could continue with their stupid theology and their useless Sunna. This is
viewing the world in pragmatic terms.
In 1920, Turkey had by
definition to compete with the countries that were advanced in terms of
scientific knowledge, industrial technology, socio-economic organization, civic
discipline, and behavioral adaptation. There could not be any other choice: either
the Turks would follow this path or ultimately every ignorant and idiotic
religious leader or theologian (let alone low level 'politician') would end up
as slave, lackey or puppet of the colonial powers without even understanding
it.
However, this approach does
not mean that Kemal Ataturk introduced Western European or North American
customs, "because he wanted to change or eliminate the traditional Turkish
culture" (as his irrelevant critics have always pretended); actually, the
founder of Turkey did not try to copy and paste habits and lifestyle. On the
contrary, he selected the essential, the functional and the necessary elements
of Western behavior and scrupulously adapted them to the socio-cultural context
of Anatolia (and he did exactly the same as regards the system of governance
that he launched). In 1935, the average Turk was more "European" than
the average Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian – let alone Greek. As an
eclectic thinker, Ataturk simply wanted the Turks to be able to perform like
the Germans, to be free of the incommensurate complex of inferiority of the
Egyptians and other Arabic speaking people, and to be acquainted with the
customs, practices, and formalities of the world's most advanced nations.
Any Turk traveling to
Central and Western Europe for studies, research or work in the 1920s would
make a ludicrous spectacle if dressed in the old Ottoman fashion. How could
Turkey cope economically and financially with the world's advanced countries,
if the Turkish companies, banks and stock exchange did not function according
to the Western standards of Free Market economy? It was therefore totally impossible
for the workweek in Turkey to break for one day (namely Friday), due to
traditions that were the reason of Ottoman Empire's decay and collapse;
ultimately Friday had to become a working day. The question when a Muslim will
find some time to pray is his strictly personal affair – not the affair of the
society, the state or the government. Companies cannot afford to accord 'break
time' for prayer, because in such a case, the employee's mind is stuck in
unnecessary topics unrelated to work and performance indices.
There is a Modern
Turkish word (constructed by Kemal Ataturk's grammarians) that helps realize
which the top priority was for the founder of Modern Turkey:
"çağdaş". This constructed word means 'contemporary' and also
'up-to-date'. The word became also a personal name for men and women in Turkey,
and it is quite indicative of the effort made by the secular establishment of
Kemal Ataturk for the entire nation to get disentangled from obsolete
structures and ineffective manners that engulfed the Turks in worthless forms
of pseudo-religion. About:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/çağdaş
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çağdaş
The combination of
traditional Anatolian Turkish culture preservation and scientific,
technological, educational and socio-economic modernization is
characteristically described in the title of a leading article published by the
influential Prof. Erol Manisalı in Cumhuriyet (24 July 2018): "Atatürk’te
zeybek, tango ve ‘yön’" («In Atatürk, there is zeybek, tango and 'direction'»).
https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/erol-manisali/ataturkte-zeybek-tango-ve-yon-1035324
H- Kemal Ataturk founded
a state in which every inhabitant was treated as equal with the rest and on the
basis of justice, equity and solidarity.
Until its final
collapse, the Ottoman Empire was the shameful realm where the brothers of a new
sultan were almost institutionally massacred (for fear of eventual rebellion),
the harem's nauseating intrigues impacted many important state affairs
(obviously catastrophically), the idiotic, ignorant and biased theologians
scrutinized the sultan's decisions (with disastrous results as it could always
be expected), and the overwhelming majority of the population (Muslim,
Christian or other) was viewed as a mere tool for tax extraction and any further
utilization. Following the disastrous model of the so-called "bureaucratic
byzantinism", the Istanbulite theological circles consisted in a real
cancerous tumor, as they treated the empire's populations in a most disgraceful
manner, as if human lives mattered only when compatible with their targets.
The iniquitous, partial,
mendacious, utilitarian, and perverse nature and intentions of the Istanbul
theological institutions were such that all the influential Ottoman theologians
intended to rule the Empire by
a) tyrannically imposing
their pseudo-Islamic fallacy on the Anatolian populations, which -being the
vertebral column of the Ottoman Empire- vehemently rejected the Istanbulite
meaningless theological doctrine and preserved their Islamic spirituality
(being organized in Orders like the Mevlevi and the Bektashi),
b) viciously exploiting
the Anatolian populations economically and militarily, and
c) incessantly oppressing,
persecuting and eventually deporting them. This situation alienated the bulk of
the Anatolian populations up to the extent that this situation contributed to
the debilitation of the Ottoman state.
In other words, the
same pattern that caused the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire impacted also
the Caliphate during the Ottoman times. The Patriarchate of Constantinople had
tremendously contributed to the devitalizing and impairing the imperial state, because
of its ceaseless religious-spiritual clash with the Anatolian populations that
rejected the pseudo-Christian fallacy of the Constantinopolitan theologians.
There were ceaseless revolts, unbearable Constantinopolitan oppression of the
Anatolian populations, interminable massacres, and all forms of tyranny carried
out by the every now and then dispatched imperial guards; at the end, the
Eastern Roman Christian Anatolian populations accepted Alp Arslan and the
Seljuks as true liberators. The exactly same story occurred in Ottoman Anatolia
with the Şahqulu (Şahkulu) movement, the Bektashi, the Qizilbash, and the
Mevlevis.
With Kemal Ataturk,
Anatolia finally took its well-deserved and most necessary revenge over the
elites of the caliphate's capital. In 1924, thank God, all the imperial magistrates
and potentates were reduced to the level of every simple farmer and
cattle-keeper of Anatolia.
I- Kemal Ataturk re-engineered
the Turkish society toward knowledge, wisdom, creativity, productivity,
equilibrium and tolerance.
It was clear that, if
the state itself was to be replaced by a totally different structure of
governance, the society would have to be fully transformed, so that the
inhabitants of the country be in a position to duly cope with the totally new
environment and to effectively perform under the new rules. This was an
experiment that Kemal Ataturk undertook without an ideology as a point of
reference; this is another important point of differentiation between Lenin and
Ataturk. The former had already written articles, speeches and books as to how
to organize the state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that he wanted to
impose by using the support of the communist party – or of a faction of it, to
be accurate. But when Kemal Ataturk liberated the country from foreign thugs,
gangsters and invaders, no one knew what orders, measures, rules, and changes
he would introduce. No one was able then to assume when this or that new law
and measure would be launched and in what order the new rules would be
introduced; and the founder of Turkey had never written before even a brief
note or a list of the groundbreaking measures that were necessary to implement
in order to remove the Turks from the Ottoman apathy and the
"Islamic" putrefaction in which they found themselves.
Kemal Ataturk made it
clear that human life has no value, if productivity and creativity do not
characterize the activities and the targets of the human being. He wanted to
take Turks out of the counterproductive, useless, abnormal and lethargic lifestyle
that the Ottoman theologians had imposed whereby it was 'enough' for every
Muslim to make five prayers per day, fast during the daytime in Ramadhan, carry
out few more tasks and then live without discipline, target and commitment. However,
the founder of Turkey was a moderate and balanced person, and thanks to this
fact, his new country did not live atrocious and inhuman situations like the
Soviet Stokhanovism; the Communists used to denounce the exploitation of humans
by other humans, but did indeed exploit humans more than any other tyranny did
in the History of the Mankind. In fact, the USSR had to wait until Nikita
Khrushchev launched the de-Stalinization era in order to get rid of the useless
medals "За трудовую доблесть" that bear witness to dehumanized beings
reduced to robot-like lives for the sake of the state and its profitability.
With Ataturk,
illiteracy was almost totally erased from Turkey; knowledge, science and education
took central part in the life of a society 'en pleine mutation'. Contrarily to
the 19-year span of time when the Halâskâr Gazi was in power(1919-1938), the
supposedly 'Islamic' society of the Ottoman times was gradually plunged into
abject misery, despicable illiteracy, pathetic ignorance, and abysmal darkness,
despite the fact that Islam, as religion, promoted knowledge over absurd
belief, investigation instead of blind acceptance, and learning instead of
lethargy. In fact, after 1580, the Ottoman Empire regressed instead of
progressing.
Although, in the early
16th c., the Ottoman Empire was the inheritor of an entire millennium of
Islamic Civilization, which was in fact the first World Civilization that
encompassed the spiritual, cultural, moral, intellectual, scholarly, scientific
and artistic heritage of all earlier civilizations, after the middle of the
16th c., the so-called 'Sunni Islamic' theological cholera prevailed at the
level of the Istanbulite-Ottoman society and governance, notably during the
reign of the gullible, suggestible Murat III (1574-1595). The prevalence of
those theological circles in the Ottoman court brought forth the irrevocable
demolition, elimination and expiration of the Genius of Islamic Civilization.
Ignorant people, who
should have been killed as enemies of the Mankind, the then theologians,
sheikhs, imams, etc. became influential in the Ottoman court, and due to their disastrous
choices and utter paranoia, every scholarly-scientific exploration, every
intellectual investigation, every artistic innovation, every conceptual re-evaluation,
every transcendental reconfiguration, and every spiritual meditation were
prohibited and labeled as "black magic", "sorcery",
"witchcraft" and the like.
Those backward and
silly fools considered as "evildoing" everything that they did not
know, and due to their barbarism, they put an end to spirituality, sciences,
arts, culture and civilization within the Ottoman Empire. After 1580 and the
destruction of the Istanbul Observatory by the fanaticized mob that was guided
by these evil and asinine theologians and imams, Islamic Civilization is
considered defunct. It was only normal for the Ottoman Empire to progressively
collapse and disintegrate afterwards, since its inhabitants were forced to live
as per the inhuman orders that derived from the moronic Sunna-doctrine of the
uneducated theologians who prohibited any other education than theirs.
In only 19 years, Kemal
Ataturk overwhelmingly and spectacularly reversed this 350-year enduring,
deplorable and self-disastrous situation; in this regard, his undertaking was
far more difficult, far more unconventional, and far more staggering than
Lenin's, because the founder of Soviet Union did not find Czarist Russia in a
state of long decadence but only of slow rise, progress and modernization in
comparison to Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the countries of Western Europe and
North America.
J- Kemal Ataturk promoted
individual initiative, amelioration and expansibility.
There is one key point
in which Life was not fair to Kemal Ataturk: he died very early. The founder of
Turkey was only 57, when he passed away. Had he lived another 20 years (which
is a modest estimate of life expectancy) we would have got a far more complete
understanding of his vision, achievements, mindset, world conceptualization,
and stance toward major world events (notably WW II, the Cold War, the
so-called decolonization process, etc.). Speaking of Kemal Ataturk, few realize
that in his time, there was no India, China was occupied by Japan, and the
entire African continent was still divided in colonial zones (French, English,
Italian, Belgian, Portuguese and Spanish).
Although the founder of
Turkey dedicated most of his time after 1922 to the implementation of the
changes that he introduced, we still do not have a complete idea about his view
of the human being and about the extent to which he wanted to carry out a deep personal
transformation in every Turk. Many scholars, historians, political scientists,
intellectuals, analysts and commentators published thousands of books and
articles about Ataturk as the founder of a brand new state, as the social
transformer of Modern Turkey, and as the supreme educator of his nation. But no
one viewed in the founder of Modern Turkey the spiritual mentor of every Turk
and of every human.
At this point, we can
accept that Ataturk did not only want to found a new, lawful, competent and effective
state with social solidarity and free market economy, but he also desired to
invigorate the average Turk and make him an unrestrained, extrovert, daring and
entrepreneurial person well versed in taking risks and gambles for the benefit
of his career, business, expansion and commitment. For Kemal Ataturk, every
Turk's best contribution to the national cause would be his own personal
initiative in every field he would prefer to express his initiative, dynamism
and inventiveness. We can therefore conclude that the founder of Turkey had
exactly the same idea and the same wish for every human anywhere on Earth, if
we take into consideration his famous motto (first said in one speech given in
a town in Anatolia on the 20th April 1931) "Yurtta sulh, cihanda
sulh" (Peace at Home, Peace in the World), which proves that Ataturk
evidently demonstrated a sheer interest not only in Turkey but also in the
world affairs.
This critical trait was
not however visible during the tenure of Ataturk's ineffectual and
uncharismatic successors, starting with Ismet Inönü and the cursed figure of
Adnan Menderes. With the catastrophic and totally treacherous introduction of
Western 'politics' in the governance of Turkey, with the constant involvement of
the army in the politics, and with the untrue, mean and unreliable character of
many 'Kemalists', after 1938 Turkey was progressively transformed into a
bureaucratic state in the epicenter of which there was an enormous
military-industrial complex. This situation was totally opposed to Kemal
Ataturk's vision of Turkey and harmed the average Turk enormously, by reducing
him to a docile citizen who was asked to blindly obey the orders, the routine,
and the Kemaluist doctrine of the public sector's officials, who were in
reality at the very antipodes of Ataturk. The gradual (1940 - 1970)
bureaucratization of Turkey was one of the heaviest blows made against the
state founded by the Halâskâr Gazi and a real disgrace to his memory.
K- Kemal Ataturk was
an example in terms of accurate perception, conceptual and active thinking,
self-criticism, adaptability, and alternative option identification.
From the
aforementioned, one can safely hypothesize that Kemal Ataturk was not a
dogmatic person; contrarily to his idiotic opponents, who are manipulated by
the colonial Western powers without even understanding it, the founder of
Modern Turkey was a balanced and tolerant person, known for his temperance and
for accepting constructive criticism. Although he was a man of strong
convictions, he knew very well that the best way to reconfirm the validity of
one's own arguments and decisions was to continually challenge them by
examining several experiments. Ataturk experimented potential alternatives to
several issues quite often and at times in cases of very serious and critical
topics; the form of the state that he instituted was one of them!
The text itself of the
Constitution of 1923 makes it clear that the founder of Turkey was convinced
that a state made, manned and controlled by the people, governed and
administered truthfully for the people, and advanced in parallel with the
people (i.e. the entire society) should have the social support of only one
organization, in which every person could become a member and every opinion
could be debated sincerely. Contrarily to the disreputable constitutions of
tyrannical Western states, which are shamelessly masqueraded as
"democracies", Turkey's first and only real constitution did not
allow any separate group of people to have the chance of separating themselves
from the rest, the possibility of forming a fake and always unnecessary
'opposition', and the ability of cheating or deceiving others, let alone the
outright majority, by means of debased and absurd theories, pathetic 'political
ideas', comical and evil ideologies, and the nonsensical doctrines of the
racist Western intelligentsia.
This testifies to two
critical points:
First, Kemal Ataturk
knew that the so-called modern democratic multiparty system is a permanent
fallacy, an inhuman deception, and an evil distortion that severely harms the
societies, misrepresents the people's will, and ends up as a concealed form of
monstrous tyranny. This is due to the fact that in the governance of a society
there cannot be any ideas, theories or ideologies involved, because these
mental endeavors consist in overwhelming misrepresentation of the reality, and
as such they divide the unsophisticated people, who need no theories and no
ideologies to duly perceive the reality and then normally live their lives.
Governance relates to
reality; theories and ideologies are unreal fantasies and unrealistic fallacies
of every eventually counter-productive or paranoid individual whose unnecessary
assumptions and disastrous projections confuse the entire society. In any case,
the paradoxical and deceitful scheme of 'political parties' reflecting falsely
different ideologies (that are all equally impracticable, fictional and
inhuman) is a modern times' neologism and aberration that did not exist in any
previous systems of non-monarchical states. That's why Turkey's Constitution of
1923 did not provide any details as regards the absolutely unnecessary
establishment of various so-called 'political parties', simply because the
Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (Republican People's Party, founded on 7th September
1919) was the venue of all Turks, thus automatically canceling the dispensable 'need'
for any 'other' party, let alone an 'opposition'.
Second, the
aforementioned situation clearly demonstrates how fake, wrong, mendacious and
evil are all of today's critics of Kemal Ataturk, when accusing him for having
'westernized' Turkey. The founder of Turkey did not 'westernize' but merely
updated his society, empowering Turks with perefct tools of governance that
guaranteed success in the effort of catching up with the technologically developed
countries of the West; he did not copy any Western political system. Quite
contrarily, he prevented Turkey from becoming a socio-political, 'republican',
contamination like the US or France. When Ataturk launched his ingenious and
multifaceted program, there were many non-monarchical states in Europe and
America, which consisted mostly in multiparty establishments. However, these
states were not accepted by Ataturk as trusted models or acceptable paradigms.
The example of Italy's
1923 elections (or parody of elections) was certainly studied very well by the
man who conceived the pillars of Turkey's Constitution of 1923; Turkey would
not need either a Benito Mussolini or a Giacomo Matteotti. All people could
express their own opinions within the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, exactly because
it was the venue for all the people (halk). This shows very well that Kemal
Ataturk was not someone limited to mere copying & pasting Western systems
and practices, but he introduced his own, new, and genuine system that best
suited the Turkish nation of Anatolia.
However, despite Kemal
Ataturk's evident predilection for a one-party system of social organization
and governance, he willingly accepted to test how a second party would function
within the context that he had just established. This shows that he always
examined various alternatives in diverse issues. As a matter of fact, in 1930,
the founder of Turkey asked the former Turkish ambassador to France Ali Fethy
Okyar to take the initiative and launch a new party, which would offer an
alternative viewpoint on, and a different venue for, debates pertaining to
Turkey's social organization and governance. Consequently, soon afterwards,
Okyar established the Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Liberal Republican Party) as a
party of constructive opposition.
The experiment was
quite indicative; within few months, the cancerous tumor of backward, ignorant
and blind Islamists, i.e. Kemal Ataturk's earliest opponents, enrolled in the
new party and gathered there in order to voice their paranoia. These Islamists
were filthy liars and hypocritical crooks, who did not give a damn about the
ideas of liberal economy that the party founder wanted to promote with the
support of Kemal Ataturk. These Satanic Muslims could cooperate even with the
most squalid demons in order to express their sick hatred against the founder
of Modern Turkey. Inevitably, even before the end of the year (!), Ali Fethy
Okyar decided to close down the ill-fated party, before these uneducated
gangsters managed to spit their ideological, pseudo-religious venom and impair
the new, free and moral society that was being formed at the time. In Kemal
Ataturk's Turkey no one had the right to contaminate the entire nation by shamelessly
uttering silly sentences of the type: "democracy is like a streetcar. When
you come to your stop, you get off".
Indiscriminate freedom
of speech is the worst enemy of the Mankind and the bitterest adversary of Human
Freedom. Why this is so is easy to grasp: there is no freedom beyond the limits
of Moral. Freedom is only a moral value; without Moral, there is no freedom.
Otherwise, the Mankind will sail adrift and, after the immoral, absurd and
totalitarian pseudo-concept of "indiscriminate freedom of speech" is
imposed worldwide, humans will be asked to also revere the freedom of murder.
The fallacy of the
modern Western tyrannies, which are euphemistically called 'democracies', is a
vast topic that evidently goes out of the scope of the present article. However,
the aforementioned example clearly shows that Kemal Ataturk, although he had
the foresight to understand that multi-party system and partisan
differentiation on the basis of various nonsensical ideologies is an absurdity
and a deception, he gave it a try and wanted to check how a multi-party system
functions in the daily life.
X.
Kemal Ataturk's Everlasting Legacy and Turkey's Betrayers
Many people presently
believe that the most determined enemies of Kemal Ataturk have been the various
branches of Islamic Fundamentalism, Extremism, Radicalism, and Terrorism, i.e.
the tenebrous realm of Political Islam, Wahhabism, and the other ramifications
of today's fake Muslims. But this is only a superficial reading of Modern
Turkey's History.
A –
The Islamists
Every paranoid, who
imagines that it is possible to establish today a state based on a modern
theological interpretation of Islam (or any other religion), cannot be the
enemy of anyone else except himself. The world of the Islamic Caliphates (as long
as they were not in decay or coma for some centuries) and the modern world are
two totally separated universes that have nothing in common and can never meet,
let alone amalgamate. This was already known to Kemal Ataturk; that's why he
relied on Islamic princples, values and culture to create something new,
authentic and absolutely Islamic, Anatolian and Oriental of nature.
The dogmatic idiots,
who think it is possible to change Turkey, will see their own destruction with
their own eyes; these ignorant people, like Turkey's post-2002 parliamentary
and presidential fake majorities (produced through electoral trickery and
foreign interference in the backstage), in their fanatic and berserk effort to
put an end to "secular Turkey" and substitute it with their fictional
"Islamic Turkey", will simply be left with no ….. Turkey at all!
Then, it will be too late for them to regret and repent.
All states are
structures erected as per their own particular rules; when these rules are
breached, the structure falls apart. There is no need to wait for a conqueror,
who will destroy a state, when the structure ceases to serve its purpose and to
be what it was geared to be. In today's world, contrarily to the Pre-Islamic
Antiquity or to the times of the early caliphates, there is no vacuum left
across the Earth. This parameter changes everything, because if a state falls
apart nowadays, there will be no chance for rehabilitation and reunification;
there will be either permanent division and strife (as in Somalia, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc.) or loss of territory (USSR).
Although colonial
fabrications and pseudo-states, like Egypt, Pakistan, India, Sudan, Algeria,
etc., can eventually be multiparty 'democracies', 'one-party' tyrannies,
military dictatorships, religious-theological autocracies, 'constitutional'
monarchies or lawless despotic realms, a genuinely new and innovative state
structure cannot be re-engineered. This happens because all pseudo-states
constructed by the colonial powers were programmed in a way to best suit the variable
interests of their colonial masters and consequently, they never had a proper
infrastructure. These fake states never were (and they can never be) proper
states, because they were geared to be mere caricatures of states, able to be
transformed as per their masters' desires.
Contrarily to these
pseudo-states, the USSR could never be re-engineered, and that's why it fell
apart, and Russia lost an important part of its territory. Similarly, the US
cannot be reinvented. And Western European 'democracies' cannot be
restructured. For some decades, it was thought as possible that Communists
could eventually rise to power in some of these Western European states (Italy,
France, Portugal), but this would simply imply that these states would fall
apart. Falling apart is tantamount to territorial loss in most of the cases. The
example of China's transformation into a form of "Socialism with Chinese
characteristics" (中国特色社会主义,
lit. "China-especially-colored Socialism") is a unique case that had
earlier been systematically developed and debated among the supreme hierarchy
of the Chinese Communist Party (中國共產)
as regards its cultural, intellectual, ideological and socio-economic dimensions
and then implemented and crosschecked at all levels. But there have never been
another Muslim Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997; 邓小平),
except Kemal Ataturk himself.
Post-1938 Turkish
Islamists, either they showed their real face or were masqueraded as Kemalists,
were – all – unaware of the realities of modern world; most of them were
totally unable to envision how their doctrine could possibly be implemented. The
only honorable exception was the first 'Islamist' (the term is only
conventionally used here) prime minister of Turkey Prof. Necmettin Erbakan
(1926-2011), who was already a veteran statesman, when he became prime minister
(June 1996 – June 1997) in coalition with Tansu Çiller as deputy prime minister.
However, he had published his Manifesto for his Millî Görüş (National Vision)
as early as 1969, i.e. five years before the first of the three times he was
appointed as deputy prime minister in coalition governments. Necmettin
Erbakan's cultural, theoretical and socio-economic conceptualization had
nothing to do with Political Islam; it merely consisted in an effort to
revitalize the state of Kemal Ataturk by restating Anatolian Turkish Culture, promoting
traditional values and moral integrity, reasserting Turkish national identity,
reinvigorating the economy (with the then much needed privatizations), and
modernizing the technical infrastructure of Turkey's vast rural areas. Had
Erbakan remained in the power for long, he would truly have become Turkey's
Deng Xiaoping.
The scope of the
present article is neither to enumerate the various rebellions started by
incorrigible and retarded sheikhs, who could not comprehend Kemal Ataturk's innovative
initiatives and the reasons for them, nor to describe the failure of various ignorant
imams, fallen mystics, and worthless theorists to realize that what they (during
the 20th c.) used to think of Islam was not anymore the true, historical Islam
(as spirituality, religion, wisdom, knowledge, literature, epics, science, art,
culture, philosophy, architecture, tradition and civilization), but a
decomposed and putrefied remnant that had no value at all anymore. In reality
and despite all appearances, there is no continuity between the Historical
Islam and today's Muslims; there is a rupture, a gap.
In brief, what
Ataturk's opponents called and still now call 'Islam' is in reality 'their
Islam'; and disastrously enough for them, their Islam had nothing to do with the
historical Islam as evidently (and on the basis of innumerable historical
sources) practiced, revered and expanded throughout the centuries in many,
variable forms and dimensions. This concerns notably Said Nursî, who is viewed
as the source of inspiration of all posterior Islamist movements in Turkey,
although he can by no means be described as an 'Islamist'.
In reality, Said Nursî's
arbitrary acceptance of Western science and rationalism, and his demented
effort to amalgamate two systems that are diametrically opposed to, and cannot intermingle
with, one another were due to his
a) lack of knowledge
(he did not study either the historical Islamic sciences of the Golden Era of
Islamic Civilization or the Modern Western sciences),
b) erroneous assumption
that the Modern Western sciences derived from the sciences of the Golden Era of
Islamic Civilization (which is at the antipodes of the historical reality
because, despite the enormous transfer of knowledge that took place between the
civilized Orient and the barbaric Western Europe across the centuries, all the
constituent elements, moral principles, basic concepts, and known data of
Oriental sciences were first either rejected or misperceived, then erroneously contecxtualized,
deliberately distorted, and finally used malignantly for the fabrication of a
counterfeit, inhuman system of sciences),
c) confusion between
the historical Islamic rationalism and the modern Western rationalism, and
d) limited understanding
of the sources, dimensions, nature and targets of the Western materialism and
atheism.
Said Nursî was not
opposed to the entire spectrum of Kemal Ataturk's reforms. Before the rise of
the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) to power, Said Nursî was a lukewarm
supporter of Pan-Ottomanism, if one correctly comprehends the term as a vague,
non-systematized array of ideas and proposals as to just how to reinstate and
reinvigorate the Ottoman Empire. Of course, he defended the Caliphate against
the CUP, by participating in the Ottoman coup against CUP (1909), and later he
opposed every notion of Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanianism. But he had already
comprehended very well the failure, the ineptness, and the ultimate corruption
of the Constantinopolitan theologians and of the worthless bureaucrats of the
Office of the Sheikhulislam. Actually, Said Nursî, despite all the lies said
about him by the various pseudo-religious groups and bogus-spiritual orders
instituted in Turkey over the past few decades, was happy with the fact that
Kemal Ataturk destroyed the formal Ottoman religious establishment (an
institution that had lasted 600 years: 1424-1924).
Said Nursî (1877-1960),
although he had almost the same age as Kemal Ataturk, was a man of very
different background and orientation than the founder of Turkey. Said Nursî
could not understand the mentality of a military officer, who became a unique
reformer and statesman, after liberating parts of his endangered country. Contrarily
to Said Nursî's inclination to theoretically-intellectually accept the Modern
Western sciences, Kemal Ataturk did not either 'accept' or 'reject' these
academic disciplines: he simply wanted the average Turk to be well-versed in
them in order to became able to catch up with the scientifically and
technologically advanced countries and adequately modernize the newly founded
state. It would be up to the prospective generations of Turkish scientists to
fully accept, criticize, disapprove of, modify or even attack the foundations
of the Western sciences, by establishing totally new approaches (other than
mere material observation and experiment) to the study, the exploration, and the
evaluation of the material and the spiritual worlds.
There was one thing
that Kemal Ataturk would never accept: that an uneducated and ignorant person,
after obtaining an undeserved position of authority, rejects beforehand something
that he does not know; this is tantamount to utter paranoia. And this is
exactly what all the pathetically indoctrinated and idiotic Islamists of
today's Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and so many
other countries (Muslim Diaspora in Western Europe, North America, and
Australia included) do ceaselessly, thus bringing forth calamitous developments
and disproportionate disasters for the entire Muslim World.
Kemal Ataturk and Said Nursî
could have easily cooperated and set common targets within the national effort
of reasserting the Anatolian Turkish culture, but this was prevented by the
common enemies of both men. At this point, it is necessary to add that the 'Ustadh'
or the 'Bediüzzaman' ('master' or 'marvel of the time': honorific appellations
for the greater Turkish theologian of the 20th c.) did not champion any idea
related to the Pan-Islamism or to the so-called Islamic Modernism (two distinct
ideological forgeries that were geared by the criminal colonial academia of
France and England in order to deceive many gullible and ignorant sheikhs,
ideologists and activists, like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad
Rashid Rida, Sayyid Qutb and others).
Said Nursî's farness
from, and rejection of, the aforementioned figures and their ideas and thoughts
was due to his strong acquaintance with, and knowledge of, the Ottoman
administration, to his affiliation to Pan-Ottomanism, and to his ability to
distinguish between
a) imperial-level
understanding of the intentions, the targets, the methods and the practices of
the colonial powers, and
b) village-level
absolute inability to assess colonial countries' methods, such as political
intrigues, psychological manipulations, divisive schemes, machinations geared
to trigger self-damaging behavior and reactions to the enemy, and many other
types of evil plots (theoretical, academic, scientific, intellectual,
educational, behavioral, cultural, ideological, political, economic and other).
In other words, the
Constantinopolitan Ottoman theological elite around the Sultan and the
Sheikhulislam had certainly failed to oppose the sophisticated plans and plots
of the evil colonial empires, but they were still experienced magistrates, who
definitely had enough knowledge, wisdom, perspicacity and foresight to identify
strengths pulled by foreign powers and to thus avoid falling in ideological and
theoretical traps – in striking difference with the aforementioned ignorant
sheikhs and ideologists. Having frequented these Ottoman elites, Said Nursî was
able to discern accurately at the level of governance, although he missed other
capacities and qualifications.
Many Turkish preachers,
ideologists, theologians and activists associated themselves with Said Nursî
quite often, claiming theoretical vicinity and ideological affiliation; gradually,
an entire movement (Nurculuk or Nurcular) was formed and expanded by referring
to him, but quite often the references to and mentions of him involved slight or
grave distortion of his positions. Then, an avalanche of further falsifications
followed and from Said Nursî's unrealistic ideas back in the middle of the 20th
c., we finally, at the end of the century, reached to the very bottom of the
shameful alteration, utilization and politicization of the Islamic spirituality,religion,
culture and civilization as carried out by many pathetic pseudo-sheikhs and
ignorant imams, who soon became the tool of Western countries' secret services,
like the most famous and most pathetic among them, the notorious, villainous
and ominous Fethullah Gülen. His secretive and seditious movement (Gülen
hareketi) ended up as the well-known and worldwide active, terrorist
organization (Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü) that has financed many other dozens of
thousands of corrupt and idiotic preachers, when they were not already bribed
by the secret services of several Western states.
The politicization of
Islam, as carried out over the past 40 years in Turkey, was a crucial stage of
worldwide degradation of the spiritual, mental, intellectual, academic,
educational, cultural and religious conditions of all the Muslims of the world.
The extent of the degradation was worldwide, because Turkey has always been the
de facto leading country and the driving force of the Islamic world. In fact,
the groundbreaking measures introduced by Kemal Ataturk in Turkey back in the
1920s should have been progressively accepted and implemented in all the Muslim
states, so that they all manage to reach the level Turkey did, and reject the
darkness and the obscurantism in which they had been fallen over the past 400
years. But the colonial powers prevented this development in order to maintain control
over, and keep exploiting, all the other Muslim countries and the fake
leaderships that the Westerners appointed there as local slaves and stooges in
the first place. The method that the colonial powers employed to achieve their
calamitous targets in their colonies across the Islamic world was precisely the
formation of Political Islam (or Islamism), the promotion of the Wahhabi
cholera, and the diffusion of the racist bogus ideology of Arab Nationalism.
In this regard, the
politicization of Islam in Turkey was a form of late, indirect and covered
colonization and barbarization of Turkey that I denounced very early (January
2009):
https://www.academia.edu/25674462/The_Colonization_of_Turkey_2009_By_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
and
https://www.academia.edu/25675709/How_Turkey_is_Gradually_Being_Colonized_2009_By_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
This phenomenon was not
the revivification of the Islamic religion as its demented supporters claimed,
being empowered by the evil colonial academics, who composed false and
ludicrous terms (like 'Islamic Revivalism') in order to obscure the reality and
confuse all the people worldwide. In fact, this disastrous phenomenon was the
return of Islam's counterfeit revenant, i.e. the corporeal and mental reconstitution
of undead, demoniacally possessed, Muslim zombies that spread terror, darkness
and permanent dementia. There is nothing Islamic in any form or branch of the
Political Islam (let alone in Wahhabism); when today's Muslim zombies read the
Quran, they understand all major terms in another, erroneous connotation that
is diametrically opposed to the perception of the text by true Muslims of the
Golden Era of Islamic Civilization. Because this happens to modern times'
Muslim zombies, they are cannot reproduce the Islamic Civilization, precisely
because they are not Muslims.
Only Necmettin Erbakan
made a honorable exception in this nefarious development. And this is so,
because his effort was evidently creative: he composed a totally new, authentic,
synthesis (titled 'Millî Görüş') made out of traditional Anatolian culture,
Muslim moral, Turkish national education, and modern technology & engineering
(Erbakan was a mechanical engineer, with a PhD in Engineering from the RWTH
Aachen University, and later a university professor in Turkey). Millî Görüş had
nothing in common with any branch of Political Islam and, as theoretical system,
it was not related to the politicization of Islam or any theological
interpretation. It was totally unrelated to religion.
As a matter of fact,
Millî Görüş was not a political ideology that utilized religious prescriptions
to fanaticize people; it was rather a theoretical socio-cultural and moral
system that stressed the need of the Anatolian Turkish society to retain
cultural traditions and moral values while economically, technologically and
academically coping with Western countries. It consisted in a very conscious and
well-thought effort to overwhelmingly reject the post-WWII theoretical,
ideological, educational, moral and behavavioral corruption of the Western
world, as well as the irreversible putrefaction that characterizes already the
Western world. To put it in simple words, Erbakan tried to retain whatever he deemed
as constructive and rewarding element of the Western science and technology,
while keeping the Anatolian Turkish society intact from the Western moral and
socio-behavioral contamination. Toward the Western world in its entirety,
Erbakan was so eclectic in the 1970s as Ataturk was in the 1920s.
If thoroughly
implemented, Millî Görüş would guarantee economic independence (instead of
pathetic Erdogan's sellout of Turkey's organizations, companies and
cogglomerates to forces of economic globalization), optimized industrialization
(instead of worthless Erdogan's inconsistent economics and unsustainable public
debt), and advanced competitiveness in the world markets. Necmettin Erbakan was
a most serious threat to the Western plan that provided for Turkey's
colonization via the scheme of Political Islam. The colonial countries' local
stooges, be they generals and colonels or preachers and imams, described
Erbakan as 'Islamist', whereas he was the last stand of Kemal Ataturk's
paradigm against the either hypocritical or idiotic Kemalists. It is quite
indicative: Prof. Necmettin Erbakan never met the miserable, disreputable and
vicious enemy of Turkey, Fethullah Gülen.
The politicization of
Islam was in fact imposed across Turkey's politics via systematic intereference
of many foreign institutions in Turkey's military, economic, socio-political
life during the 1990s and the 2000s. The local Islamist stooges and puppets of
American, English and French politicians, diplomats, military and intelligence
officers, academics, and businessmen were not actually the first Turkish servants
and lackeys of the Western powers. Historically, these corrupt and treacherous
elements constituted the next stage of Western interference in the affairs of
the 19th c. ailing Ottoman Empire; when the caliphate was already defunct, they
deliberately masqueraded into Kemalists during the period 1918-1924 and
survived as part of the new establishment, having at times high positions next
to Kemal Ataturk. Their only target was to progressively sabotage Ataturk's efforts
to create an incorruptible and formidable state that would belong to all the
people and not to the treacherous, secluded, indoctrinated, pseudo-Islamic elites
of silly theologians.
The first traitors of
Kemal Ataturk were therefore some hypocritical elements that appeared as
supporters and admirers of the founder of Turkey; some of them were even high magistrates
belonging to Ataturk's immediate entourage. These early Kemalists were used by
Western diplomats in their effort to destroy the state of Kemal Ataturk, which
was - in total contrast with the Western elitist, pseudo-democratic tyrannies -
a state that fully reflected a free society of equal nationals with strong
cultural-historical identity and moral integrity, and not (as it already
happened in the corrupt and useless Western countries) a disunited community made
of distinct, mutually in conflict, social classes exploited by criminal,
secretively segregated Orders and hierarchical societies. In fact, all the
methods that the Turkish Islamists used recently in order to further distort
the nature of the state of Kemal Ataturk had already been employed for decades
by the Kemalists; the reason is very simple: the guidance was always the same –
alien and evil!
Thus, after 2002, many
Turkish Islamists progressively started believing that, by means of
dissimulation, step-by-step deception, and silly lies said one after the other,
they could cheat the Turksh people and promote their pseudo-Islamic doctrine,
while also corrupting the masses with a fake socioeconomic improvement and
spectacular but unnecessary public works. Despite their encroachment in the
government for 18 years (thanks to the failure of the anti-Ataturk Kemalist
parties, the existence of paranoid electoral laws, the orchestration of repeated
electoral fraud, and the systematic neutralization of vast, non-Islamist masses
by means of massive flattery and bribery that took the form of financially
disastrous salary increases and numerous other material benefits), the
Islamists failed to implement a proper, let alone advanced, Islamization
agenda.
If one carefully
observes the legislation and the policies implemented over this very long
period, one concludes that Turkish Islamists will need 300 years to implement
their agenda. Populist rhetoric, half-uttered references to past stories, emotional
expression of memories, symbolic gestures, posthumous glorification of failed
Islamist ideologists and poets, like Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, lessening of strict
secular rules, and commemoration of culturally meaningless,
theoretically-educationally misinterpreted, and politically insignificant
events, like Alp Arslan's victory at Malazgirt (Manzikert) in 1071, are not
methods to bring the Ottoman Caliphate back. Turning the Ayasofya Museum to a
mosque does not bring the Ottoman Empire back; it pushes it farther and farther
to the past.
First, they faced steadfast
and fierce opposition from the military and the Kemalist opposition (despite
the incessant interference of many Western powers in favor of the Islamists);
second, they never managed to truly deepen and widen their main electoral basis
(the real nucleus of Turkey's Islamists never went above 20-23%; the rest are
not Islamists but mere, provisory voters, who get financial benefits from the
long-term disastrous governmental policy); third, they were divided among them
(covertly before 2012; overtly between 2012 and 2016; and frontally ever
since); and fourth, their necessary alliance with the Pan-Turanianists (after
July 2016 and more ostensibly after early 2017) significantly modified their
targets and possibilities, forcing them to be more realistic and less
agenda-driven.
In
fact, 18 years of Islamist governments in Turkey fully prove that Ataturk's
assaulted state and beleaguered heritage demonstrate enormous resistance to all
types of destructive efforts. Either Kemalist or Islamist, any dissimulative
policy can quantitatively modify and modulate but never qualitatively transfigure
and alter the state founded by Kenal Ataturk as per the Qizilbash spirituality
and the Bektashi transcendental illumination provided by Rudolf von
Sebottendorf. Only a very radical -Islamist, Pan-Turanianist or other- attempt
or a revolutionary act could really endanger Turkey and cause the total
disappearance of Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. But then, the tectonic movements that
would be triggered would not only change the contents and the form of the state
but break it to pieces.
Turkey's
Islamists do not have the means to turn Kemal Ataturk's Turkey to an Islamic
state; and they will never acquire them. This is the reason for which there
will never be an 'Islamic Republic of Turkey', although the venomous serpents
of the Foreign Office, the criminals of the Intelligence Service, and the
nonsensical, corrupt and villainous English academia would very much rejoice
with that perspective.
However,
due to the fact that, after 2016, the Islamists do not govern Turkey alone but
share power with the Pan-Turanianists leaves minimal space for the English evil
hopes to be possibly materialized. The same concerns also the similarly wicked
plans of France and America that have been geared long ago in order to bring
about the dismemberment and destruction of Turkey. Paris and Washington cannot and
will never understand that the state launched only in 1923 by Kemal Ataturk is
founded on principles and concepts superior to those proclaimed by their own
Founding Fathers and stated in their own constitutions. With the Pan-Turanianists
in power at Ankara, with Russia and China as strategic allies of Turkey, and
with the ever expanding New Silk Road, it is more plausible that the US and
France break down and disintegrate first.
B – The Pan-Turanianists
Many believe that the Islamists have
been the main danger for Turkey over the past century; however, this is not
quite true. It is only due to a superficial reading of the nature and of the
character of the state of Kemal Ataturk, and of its enemies. In reality, the
worst, the most perilous, enemies of the Founder of Modern Turkey have always
been the Pan-Turanianists, and that's why Ataturk kept them at distance and out
of Turkey. This truth is not easily understood because first, many people make
the terrible mistake to consider the Pan-Turanianism as a nationalist movement
with a typical nationalist ideology similar to many other, and second, numerous
colonial diplomacies, academies, intelligentsias and administrations have done
their best to defame, denigrate and demonize the Pan-Turanian ideal. Pan-Turanianism
is totally unrelated to any type of nationalism; in fact, it is at the exact
antipodes of every nationalism.
It is also essential
not to misinterpret the Pan-Turanianists' familiarity with religious rituals,
support for the cause of Islam, and professed Islamic faith; Pan-Turkists and
Pan-Turanianists are Muslims. However, they are not strictly and politically
religious like the Islamists; on another note, contrarily to the Kemalists,
they are not irreligious, agnostics or indifferent to religion.
This is so because
every nationalism is a theory, an ideology, and an academic-educational system
elaborated to
a) alter (or at times
monstrously distort) History (as History saved in original historical sources,
i.e. textual evidence and epigraphic material),
b) romanticize numerous
figuratively perceived (true or fake) moments of the past,
c) attribute to the
'nation' a racial and typically racist character (which is totally unreal and
absolutely ahistorical; in total contradiction with all modern 'nations', all
the various historical nations of the Antiquity and of the Christian-Islamic
Ages never perceived themselves racially, but culturally-spiritually), and
d) utilize -within the
context of politics (i.e. the modern, tyrannical and inhuman manner of
governance)- the average people's collective and personal sentimentalism (as
machinated due to aforementioned points a, b, and c).
The ultimate targets of
every nationalism and of every nationalist regime, establishment, institution,
party, etc. are to
i) divert the
knowledge, interest, belief and fascination of the masses from the true
historical past, from all current issues, and from down-to-earth reality;
ii) direct the
knowledge, interest, belief and fascination of the masses toward the
prefabricated delusions of a mythical role, an unequivocal vocation, and an
ultimate salvation of their (otherwise fake) 'nation', and
iii) exploit
politically (either internally or externally) the ensuing situation of mass
hypnotization, disorientation from the reality, obscurantism, and fictional
existence.
All these fictional
delusions are totally unrelated to each nation's traditional culture and
folklore, pre-modern national identity, historical past, textually evidenced
historical perceptions of the past, and historically documented conceptualizations
of the world/universe. It is therefore evident that every nationalism
fabricates a new, previously nonexistent nation that we have to define as
'political nation', because the associated efforts originate from the modern
system of governance and social organization that is called 'politics'. In
fact, every nationalism is a political ideology.
Every political nation
is totally unrelated to the 'historical nation' that it had been, prior to the
establishment of a modern political regime and to the diffusion of a
nationalist ideology; every political nation has no roots in History, and that
is why it is gradually cut off from its cultural-spiritual roots, traditions,
and folklore.
A historical nation
exists only in the past, in what we call 'History'. A historical nation is
real. All ancient nations were true and real; and more importantly, they were accurately
perceived as such by all their natives.
A political nation
exists only in the present, in what we call 'mass delusion' and 'modern
politics'. A political nation is fake; in reality, it does not exist. In modern
times, what the masses perceive as 'nation' is a nonexistent delusion geared to
absorb all the people across the Earth into the maelstrom of politics, the
forgery of geo-politics, and the abomination of globalism/globalization. During
this ominous process, all nations are transformed from 'historical nations'
into 'political nations', thus totally losing
- their identity (in
order to get as substitute a fake one),
- their integrity (in
order to disappear among the disorderly pseudo-world of amalgamated
pseudo-nations, bogus-cultures, relativized values, and immoral / amoral
mindsets and behaviors), and therefore
- their raison d'être
(because by historical standards they are not human anymore).
As such, a political
nation is predestined to vanish to extinction; this is what we have exactly
attested during the 19th and the 20th c., when politics and nationalisms were
diffused via colonization; the present phenomenon of globalization is the
natural consequence of colonization, politics and nationalisms.
Globalization is not
the abnegation of nationalisms, but their continuation; the fake political
nations were predestined to be amalgamated within the so-called global melting
pot of
1- the politically
correct, which is tantamount to morally incorrect,
2- the materialistic social
context of industrialization, consumerism, marketing, advertisements, high
technology, ceaseless crises, and mind controlling mass media, and
3- the farcical
nonsense of the 'social' media, which involve the human defacement caused by the
contamination called 'Facebook' and the human bestialization promoted by the
diseases named 'Google', 'Twitter', MSN, etc.
In fact, only
historical nations could successfully oppose, effectively counterbalance, and drastically
outmaneuver the present phenomenon of globalization; that's why they 'had' to
disappear first.
Pan-Turanianism is not
a nationalism because, in most of the cases of a Pan-Turanianist thinker,
theoretician, intellectual, ideologist or activist, we don't attest any effort
to produce a political nation out of a historical nation. Furthermore and as I
already said, Pan-Turanianism must be categorized at the antipodes of every
nationalism; this is so because, instead of re-inventing one nation (i.e.
forging a fake, 'political nation') and differentiating / distancing it from
other nations, Pan-Turanianism tries to bring together and unite several
historical nations that have common cultural and folklore background,
spiritual-religious affinities, and linguistic - literary similarities. As
such, Pan-Turanianism is rather a form of internationalism among all Turanian
nations: Anatolian Turks, Azeris, Tatars, Turkmen, Circassians, Chechnyans,
Qashqais, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Kyrgyzs, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Chuvashes. Uighurs,
Mongoliansm Tuvans, Yakuts, and many others.
The origins of Pan-Turanianism
go certainly back to Mahmud al-Kashgari (Махмуд аль-Кашгари / محمود الكاشغري; 1005-1102), an outstanding scholar of his
times, historian, geographer, ethnographer, linguist, lexicographer,
mathematician, astronomer, sociologist and historian of religions. Although he
mainly lived in Kashgar {in the southwestern confines of Eastern Turkestan,
which has been known since 1955 as the 'Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region' (شىنجاڭ ئۇيغۇر ئاپتونوم
رايونى
/新疆维吾尔自治区) of China, because mainly Uighurs
and Han Chinese live today in this area that is located in China's northwestern
extremities}, Mahmud al-Kashgari was not an Uighur; his father was a magistrate
of the Turanian Afrasiab Empire, which modern historians usually call 'Kara-Khanid
Khanate'. That vast empire controlled most of Central and Northern Asiatic
lands from the middle of 9th c. to the beginning of the 13th c. We know that
Mahmud al-Kashgari's family originated from the southeastern coast lands of the
Issyk-Kul Lake in today's Kyrgyzstan, and it is most probable that their origin
was Karluk Turanians. Written in Arabic, his famous 'Compendium of Turanian
Languages' (ديوان
لغات الترك / Diwan Lughat al Turk) is an
ethno-linguistic, literary, religious, cultural survey, critical commentary and
panorama of his times' Turanian languages, traditions, faiths, history, culture
and folklore; this historical treatise provides the very first textual evidence
of a common understanding among all Turanian nations.
The same can be said
for Yusuf Balasaguni (Юсуф Баласагуни; known in Arabic as Yusuf Khass Hajib / يوسف خاصّ حاجب; Kyrgyz: Жусуп Баласагын; Kazakh: Жүсіп Баласағұни; 1019-1077), who was born in
today's Northern Kyrgystan and lived within the vast Afrasiab Empire (the Kara-Khanid
Khanate). He was a great thinker, erudite scholar, poet, and statesman, who
evidently realized the need for a unity among all Muslim Turanians, and this is
extensively evidenced in his 'Kutadgu Bilig' ('Blessed Knowledge'), which is
the first entire book (saved down to our times) written in a Turanian language
(namely in Kara-Khanid, through use of Farsi characters).
These early
Pan-Turanian movements were intermingled with Islam; however, as the unprecedented
and ever since unequaled conquests of Genghiz Khan (1158-1227) demonstrate, within
the aureole of the Pan-Turanian circumference either Tengrism (which is a real
religion in contrast with 'Shamanism', which is a Western projection and
reconstruction) or Islam can easily be accommodated. However, there is an
enormous historical obstacle to every Pan-Turanian concept, vision, theory or
wish; the opposition between the Western and the Eastern Turanians has always
been a determinant and almost permanent trait of all internal Turanian strives,
conflicts and wars. Two calamitously sinister and apparently permanent characteristics
seem to have always been inherent in the character, mentality and world
conceptualization of almost all great Turanian emperors, conquerors, khaqans,
shahs and sultans:
a) the deep
polarization between nomadic and semi-nomadic or sedentary populations
{The Turanian nomads
viewed always the sedentary Turanians as weaker, degraded, and fallen -if not
even effeminate- people. Eastern Turanians viewed always as human shame the
fact that Turanian tribes that moved to the West (in Central Asia) and to the
South (China) preferred to abandon their nomadic life and to settle in various
locations, building homes and becoming sedentary. This was not a matter of
simple belief but of actual practice; when hundreds of years later, some
Eastern Turanians raided in the West and found other Turanian tribes that had
left Northeast Asia and settled in Central Asia, they treated them as slaves
and did not spare their lives}, and
b) the customary
division of an empire, khaqanate, sultanate, emirate, etc. among the ruler's
sons, who quarreled among themselves in extremis.
{Entire families went
extinct because of the incessant fights among the brothers, the sons, the
grandsons, the nephews, and the grandnephews of Turanian emperors, khaqans,
sultans, khans, emirs, etc.; and along with them, entire empires collapsed and
disappeared. Among the decayed Turkmen Ottomans family members, the
assassination of a crown prince's brothers was almost institutionalized in
order to prevent younger brothers from eventually becoming a threat in the
indefinite future.}
In Modern Times, the
father of Pan-Turanianism is the Turkmen Magtymguly Pyragy (Махтумкули; Farsi: مختومقلی فراغی; Turkish: Mahtumkulu Firaki; 1724-1807). The
father of Turkmen literature was a great mystic of the Naqshbandi Order, a multilingual
poet, a rich conceptual thinker, an erudite scholar, and an unsurpassed
traveler (from the Mughal Empire to the Ottoman Empire and across Central and
Northern Asia). He expressed severe criticism for the divisions among Turanian
nations and called for unity against foreign assaults that he was able to plainly
document through his interminable travels. His social-cultural vision for a
United Turan encompasses the cultural wealth, the linguistic affinities, the
Muslim moral and spirituality, and the traditional system of social
organization and governance of the Turanian nations. In his approach, there is
no theological utilitarianism, no religious sectarianism, no ethnic racialism,
no societal evolutionism, no governmental functionalism, no
political-'democratic' delusionism, and no academic-intellectual elitism.
Magtymguly was a startling
universalist, a fascinating symbolist, and a foremost transcendentalist; he
must have appeared as the most unrealistic sage of his time, but in reality, he
showed clearly to his innumerable readers across all Turanian lands that a
conscious nation proud for the wealth of their folklore, the authenticity of
their traditions, the clarity of their spirituality, and the strength of their
virtues can be instituted as an infinite empire even without an emperor, if the
selfishness of the various incompetent leaders and the introversion of a
deliberately misled society are averted. For Magtymguly, a 'nation' is clearly
a cultural entity with common ancestry, traditions, faith and language; Turan
is therefore a constellation of many nations revolving around the same
constituent elements. Some of Magtymguly poems must have certainly offered to
Kemal Ataturk a great opportunity for prodigious reflection in his youth.
One century after
Magtymguly passed away, a totally different environment had been formed across
Asia due to the advance of the colonial powers (England, France, Holland and
Russia). The diffusion of politics as a new but disastrous form of governance,
the propagation of a wide range of political ideologies, the spread of numerous,
sketchy nationalisms (hastily drafted mainly by foreign students of French and
English academic seminars and Freemasonic lodges), the assault of the Western
powers on the Sultans, the Shahs, the Gurkanian (: Great Mongols or Mughal), the
Tianzi (天子, i.e. 'Son of Heaven', namely the Great
Qing monarchs), the Czars, and the Kaisers, and the politicization of the
religions formed a totally different and absolutely confusing environment. Misguided
by this new milieu, many Turanians from the Balkans & Central Europe to
North Africa to Central & Northeastern Asia started elaborating ways of
national affirmation within the wider political, republican context.
Although the Western
colonial capitals were ferocious and determined enemies of any perspective of a
rising Turan across Asia and despite the ceaseless efforts of colonial
academics and Orientalists to undermine and conceal all things Turanian, Paris
and London agreed that a small dose of Pan-Turkism (diffused among Turkic
peoples, i.e. only a part of the Turanian nations) would further destabilize
both, the Ottoman Empire (the principal target of the colonial powers) and
Czarist Russia (France's and England's most expendable 'ally'). The Pan-Turkist
and Pan-Turanian movements that initially started with Western help were
predestined to fail pretty much like every other movement, party or state that
was formed with Western colonial 'assistance'. In fact, there were only few
exceptions to this rule. The most impressive among them was Abdurreshid Ibrahim
(Абдурашид Гумерович Ибрагимов; Turkish: Abdürreşid İbrahim; 1857-1944), an
outstanding Tatar thinker, theologian, preacher, theoretician, activist,
agitator, author, publisher of newspapers, reviews and magazines, founder of
liberation movements, ambitious liberator and unifier of all Turanian nations,
and adamant fighter for the cause of Pan-Turanian Muslim unity.
Unique personality of
uncompromising discipline, foremost persistence, exemplary adaptation in
different enironments, and paradigmatic readjustment under varied political
conjunctures, Abdurreshid Ibrahim was born in Tara, a town then located in
Tobolsk province, but currently incorporated in the province of Omsk in Western
Siberia (Russia). Indefatigable traveler for the promotion of his cause, he
pleaded for his vision almost everywhere between Tokyo and Istanbul, traveling
perhaps more than any other explorer, military, intelligence agent, diplomat,
entrepreneur or scholar of his time (from Japan to Italy to France - from NE
Siberia to Mecca to Egypt). Risky adventurer, persuasive orator, and alternative
visioner for almost all of his diverse interlocutors, Abdurreshid Ibrahim was
able to explain why Pan-Turanian Muslim unity was useful to almost anyone
except the colonial powers he was fighting against (namely Russia, England and
France). Minor sample of his strong conviction and of his unmatched persuasion skills
is the fact that, amongst other extraordinary circumstances of his fascinating
life, he became the first imam of the first Tokyo mosque.
Abdurreshid Ibrahim had
a very accurate and unbiased knowledge of Islamic and Asiatic History,
particularly about the wider continent of Asia, which is now called 'Eurasia'
by both, colonial forces whose constant preoccupation has always been to
deceive all the others, and confused theoreticians whose ability to discern has
evidently been insufficient to grasp that, during most of the last six
millennia of History, Europe has permanently been the most underdeveloped, the
most backward, the most barbarian, and the most useless peninsula of Asia.
Although not a
traditional Muslim historian like Tabari, although not a traditional Muslim
theoretician of governmental systems like Nizam al Mulk, although not a
traditional Muslim conqueror like Timur, the self-instructed (thanks to his
interminable travels) Abdurreshid Ibrahim had sufficient knowledge,
perspicacity, and contextualization skills to conclude that
a) Russia was a fake
state, which not only subjugated an enormous swath of Muslim populations,
illegally occupying their vast lands, but also -and during no less than 400
consecutive years- subjected millions of people to enforced Christianization
and Russification under threat of mass extermination;
b) the English colony
of 'India' (British Raj) was the result of an illegal foreign occupation and constituted
a criminal, anti-Turanian and anti-Muslim tyranny geared to monstrously deface
the Turanian Muslim identity of Hindustan, Bengal and the Deccan, impose a
revisionist pseudo-historical dogma, and produce a pseudo-Indian political
nation through numerous terrorist processes, like the infamous Sanskritization
campaign;
c) Japan and China were
in reality parts of the Turanian world;
d) Shintoism and
Confucianism consisted in earlier forms of monotheism similar to Tengrism; and
e) Iran and Turan were one
ethnolinguistic, cultural and spiritual entity that incorporated nomadic,
semi-nomadic and sedentary populations under the universal concept of a divine
empire that was not different from similar conceptualizations attested in
China.
Abdurreshid Ibrahim was
neither a Pan-Islamist nor a modernist reformer (Jedid), as many colonial
academics pretend today, thus fully distorting his vision and efforts; simply,
it was an undeniable fact that the majority of the Turanians outside China and
Japan were Muslims and those, who did not believe in Islam, ascribed themselves
to forms of monotheistic spirituality that did not diverge much from the basic
tenants of Islamic monotheism. Although an imam, he was not a rigid and strict theologian,
because his incessant travels acquainted him with the multiple forms of
perception and expression of the monotheistic spirituality.
He deployed his efforts
not only at the level of popularizing his ideas and concepts among Muslims in
Asia, Africa and Europe, but also by attempting to turn Japan, Austria-Hungary,
Germany, Tibet, the Dalai Lama and the Buddhists, the Bogd Khanate of Mongolia,
and the Ottoman Empre against Russia, England and France. He was able to
extensively explain to each of them their respective interests in opposing the
three colonial states, as well as the ensuing benefits for all of them. In
parallel, he incited all the Turanians and all the Muslims exposed to European
colonization threat against Russia, England and France. He was arrested many
times and even more times, he was expelled from countries that he tried to turn
against the colonial powers.
One has to admit
however that, despite his unporecedented and ever since unrivelled zeal, Abdurreshid
Ibrahim failed to achieve a substantive result. The reason for this is the fact
that he basically acted without any proper, collective infrastructure, i.e. a
movement, an organization, a front or an association. Actually, he needed what
we would call today an international party. He did not realize the advantages
deriving from the existence of various local nuclei of social activism and propaganda
and from the organization of particular groups that would continue diffusing and
popularizing his concepts, proposals, ideas, and vision, when he would not be
anymore in that specific region or country, traveling to other locations and
empires.
Abdurreshid Ibrahim was
already expelled from the Ottoman Empire before the Young Turk Revolution
(1908). As he was moving fast across vast distances, he returned to Istanbul at
the time the Young Turks (Committee of Union and Progress) rose to power; he
appeared as a most interesting thinker, thoughtful activist, and formidable
agitator to the leading statesmen among the Young Turks, and they increasingly paid
great attention to him, and to his proposals, calls and vision. His book 'Alem-i-İslam
ve Japonya’da İntişar-ı İslamiyet' found many enthusiastic supporters among the
Young Turks, who were trying to build lobbies of influence and to produce the
necessary tools for their policies in various parts of the world. Many consider
Enver Pasha (1881-1922) as the leading figure of Pan-Turkism, but there had not
been a single seed of Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanianism among the Young Turks
prior to 1910.
It was only a proof of
deep ignorance, shameless ingratitude, and pathetic populism from the part of
the worthless and pathetic Turkish president that, during his a two-day visit
in Azerbaijan (on December 9th 2020), while addressing the people of Azerbaijan,
he praised Enver Pasha by saying "May the soul of Enver Pasha be blessed
today" (https://southfront.org/azerbaijani-turkish-victory-parade-spells-dark-times-incoming-for-armenia/).
In fact, and irrespective of whatever Enver Pasha's soul may or may not be
doing now, without Abdurreshid Ibrahim's earlier propagated vision, manifested struggle,
and numerous publications, speeches, pleas, and calls, Enver Pasha would have
not be remembered as a champion of Pan-Turkism nowadays, and even his Caucasus
campaign may have not taken place.
Enver Pasha's gradual
change and shift of position from a nebulous Ottoman Modernism to an
ill-defined Pan-Turkism is entirely due to Abdurreshid Ibrahim. This shift
caused the rift between Enver Pasha and Mustafa Kemal Pasha, who then (early
1912) started taking an always greater distance from the Young Turks. It is
however true that, at those days, due to the multifaceted colonial assault on
the Islamic World and the Asiatic empires, there seemed to be a certain propinquity
among many activists with divergent ideals and beliefs. In fact, to some
extent, Pan-Turkism (and Pan-Turanianism), Pan-Ottomanism and Pan-Islamism functioned
at the time as communicating vessels of the anti-colonial forces, because the
major concern and interest was not the establishment and the nature of a future
state, but the immediate and effective repulsion of foreign attacks. As one
could have expected, Abdurreshid Ibrahim was shrewd enough to understand that
fake constructions, like Wahhabism and Political Islam, were mere vehicles of
colonial policies and to reject them.
Abdurreshid Ibrahim
fought againt the Italians in Libya, got Ottoman citizenship, became a leading
member of Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa special forces, published the legendary newspaper İslam
Dünyası, was appointed as close associate of Enver Pasha, and, although 60
years old, was engaged in the Ottoman front against the English at Basra,
Southern Mesopotamia. In 1917, he was in Berlin to better forge a Tatar-Muslim-German
alliance, whereas in 1918, he was an ally of the Communist forces in Russia.
Soon afterwards, he was considered as a counter-revolutionary element, and this
forced him to move back to Turkey and to Arabia. For Kemal Ataturk's systematic
approach and methodic effort to launch a new, solid, strong, and well-organized
state, Abdurreshid Ibrahim did not represent an enemy but a risk. The same was
valid for Enver Pasha, who was not even accepted back in Turkey, when he
reached Batumi and tried to return to the state of Kemal Ataturk, which was
still under formation. In 1935, Abdurreshid Ibrahim was deprived of his Turkish
citizenship, and he returned to Central Asia, China and Japan, deploying there further
efforts for his cause for another decade.
Contrarily to Enver
Pasha, his half brother Nuri Killigil (1869-1949) lived in Turkey, after
participating in many battles; he was a former general of the Ottoman army, leading
officer of the Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa forces against the Italians in Libya and the English
in Egypt during WWI. His major achievement is that, as the main recruiter and
the sole commander of the Islamic Army of the Caucasus (Kafkas İslâm Ordusu; Azerbaijani:
Qafqaz İslam Ordusu), he fought against the Communist (Bolshevik Baku Commune)
and Armenian army and he liberated Azerbaijan in September 1918, before being
forced to withdraw after the capitulation of the Ottoman Empire at Mudros
(Armistice of Mudros; Mondros Mütarekesi). Although arrested by the English in 1919
Batumi, Nuri Killigil escaped to Erzurum with the help of his supporters and lived
in Turkey where he established a rather small private business and abstained
from any other activity.
Nuri Killigil remained
however a dormant champion of Pan-Turkism for two decades, and after Ataturk's
death, he launched a military industrial plant. In 1941, he negotiated with
Franz von Papen (Knight of Malta; Grand
Cross of the Pontifical Order of Pius IX; 1879-1969), Germany's ambassador in
Ankara, the participation of Turkic and Turanian forces in the WWII at the side
of the Germans, demanding in exchange the secession and independence of
Turkestan (i.e. the entire Central Asia, Caucasus, sizeable parts of Siberia,
and an important portion of European Russian territories). Thanks to his
initiative and cooperation with von Papen, Nuri Killigil helped establish the Turkistanische
Legion (Turkestan Legion) that coordinated actions with the Schutzstaffel (SS).
After the end of WWII, English agents carried out a sabotage in his factory (in
Istanbul's Sütlüce district), assassinating him and many employees and workers.
However, the Turkistanische Legion became a historically remarkable Treffpunkt
of leading figures of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism, notably the Kazakh
Mustafa Shokay (Мустафа Шокай; 1890-1941) and the Uzbek Baymirza Hayit (Boymirza
Hayit Mahmudmirza o'g'li; Баймирза Хаит; 1917-2006).
For Kemal Ataturk,
Pan-Turkism (and/or Pan-Turanianism) was not something inherently bad or necessarily
pointless; but it was simply wrong under the then circumstances that prevailed
from Western Balkans to India to Eastern Siberia. The timing for such an
attempt was disastrous. According to Ataturk, attempts like the Basmachi
movement in Central Asia (Basmacı hareketi; Басмачество; its peak was from
November 1921 until August 1922, and under the leadership of Enver Pasha) were brave,
heroic, and noble, but they were predestined to doom.
If we study the
opposition between Kemal Ataturk from one side and from the other side all the
tenants of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism, we will find an interesting
parallel with another polarization that took place at those days within the
sphere of Marxism–Leninism, namely the opposition between the doctrinal concept
and theory of "socialism in a single country" (социализм в отдельно
взятой стране) defended by Stalin and Bukharin in 1924 and the rather erratic
idea of a permanent revolution, which -although insinuated by Marx and Engels-
was propagated in the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s by Trotsky. It is the typical
difference that we attest on many different occasions and about diverse issues;
we commonly describe it as the divide between the two groups: "realists
vs. idealists".
Ziya Gökalp (1876-1924),
an insignificant theoretician guided and 'educated' by French Orientalists in
order to be locally used as per the needs of the colonial powers, is the enfant
gâté of Western scholarship, when it comes to almost all things Oriental. Among
other Western colonial falsifications, exaggerated flatteries, and nonsensical
claims, he is portrayed as an important intellectual with a certain impact on
the formation and the formulation of Pan-Turkic and Pan-Turanian ideas. That's
a lie. Ziya Gökalp was a Turk from Diyarbakır, who settled in Istanbul in 1895,
and then, while studying, he was initiated in French Freemasonic lodges of the
Ottoman capital. There, he received a most confusing and absolutely fallacious
education meant to convert him to a tool for the promotion of catastrophic
French theories, ideas, and ideologies in both, the Ottoman Empire and Turkey.
It was consequently
normal for Ziya Gökalp to take strong positions against Pan-Ottomanism and
Pan-Islamism. Attracted to and confused by different Western theoretical
systems, he was practically unable to correctly perceive realities, whereas his
attitude to ceaselessly theorize and to link his understanding of diverse
situations to various Western pseudo-scientific dogmas and ideological
aberrations led him to an impasse. In fact, Ziya Gökalp cannot be possibly
considered either as an adept of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism or as a
champion of Turkish nationalism and Turkism. As he was quite noticeable as a
pro-French propagandist in the Orient, the English had to interfere, because Gökalp's
attraction to theories of the French Jew sociologist Émile Durkheim and to
ideas of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche did not bode well for their
plans in the wider region; he was then exiled to Malta (1919-1921).
Kemal Ataturk realized
that Gökalp would be dangerous if left alone, due to the ideological confusion
that characterized him, To keep the devil close (and thus render him harmless),
the founder of Modern Turkey appointed Gökalp in the Ministry of Education in
1922 and guided him as to how to best define the Anatolian Turkish cultural
identity of the Turkish nation. The points included in Gökalp's 'Principles of
Turkism' (Türkçülüğün esaslari; 1923) reflect the determinant role that Ataturk
played at the definition phase of Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. Gökalp was also elected
in the Grand National Assembly, participated in the drafting of the 1923
Constitution, and contributed greatly to the monumental educational reform that
Ataturk launched in 1923-1924. Presented by many anti-Turkish Western racists,
chauvinists and white supremacists as "Kurd", Ziya Gökalp constitutes
one of the many existing examples that the "Kurds" (at this point I
am referring only to the Kurmanji) are in reality "Turks of the
mountains" (dağların Türkleri). Contrarily to Anglo-French Freemasonic and
to American Zionist propaganda, this term does not express 'denial of separate identity'
but 'declaration of true identity'.
The case of Alparslan
Türkeş, who participated in several right wing political parties before
launching his Nationalist Movement Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi; MHP),
demonstrates only the degree of the interference of the British Intelligence in
Turkey during the 1960s-1990s. This party became the vehicle of an ill-fated,
semi-covered, and poorly conceived Pan-Turkism, and it was disastrously
patented as a typical Wedtern nationalist party, because any explicit reference
to Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanianism would trigger immediate and drastic reaction
from the military. In fact, the Cypriot Alparslan Türkeş was hired by the
English colonials to help them control, within the political spectrum of
post-Ataturk Turkey, an entire political-ideological sector that they
considered as dangerous for their interests in Turkey. This means that, if
other major powers controlled this ideological-sociopolitical sector in Turkey
and diffused through a political party various ideas, theories and approaches
harmful for the English interests across Asia, the extent of disaster for the
colonial schemes of England would considerable. This point must be taken
seriously into consideration.
Unfortunately for the English
and for the otherwise useless politician and founder of MHP, his extremist
rhetoric revealed only the emptiness of his party's ideology and the ineffectiveness
of his Bozkurtlar (Grey Wolves) youth organization's political action over
several decades. Then, Alparslan Türkeş' immediate successor at the party
leadership, Devlet Bahceli, gradually eliminated all English stooges and the pro-English
elements from the party, thus opening the path for a most determined
anti-Western stance of MHP. Several Turkish military officers (previously
thought to be Kemalist and pro-Western) became then members of the party only
to prove how greatly beneficial for the interests of China MHP can be,
particularly if in Turkey's parliament the Islamists do not form the majority.
Pan-Turanianists in
Turkey were catapulted to power in July 2016, due to the failure of the coup of
their pro-Western Islamist rivals. Some events possess an inherent symbolism:
on Wednesday, 28 September 2016, funeral rites were performed for Nuri Killigil
(also known as Nuri Pasha) at Edirnekapı Martyrs Cemetery in Istanbul for the
first time, no less than 67 years after his assassoination. In 1949, intensively
pressurized by English diplomats and self-motivated against all champions of
Pan-Turkism and/or Pan-Turanianism, the Turkish Kemalist government of Mehmet
Şemsettin Günaltay ordered Turkey's leading religious authority to issue a
ruling as per which Killigil was buried without the traditional Islamic funeral
rituals because his body was dismembered in the explosion. Rectifying a past
'mistake' (or simply taking revenge against a 'wrongdoing' perpetrated by
political opponents before almost seven decades, shows clearly that the
Pan-Turanianist agenda was in full motion already only two months after the
failed coup of 15 July 2016,
C – The Kemalists
Kemal Ataturk was not a
Kemalist, and he never asked anyone to be. As already described quite
sufficiently in previous units, the founder of Modern Turkey did not elaborate
any theory or ideology; and he never demanded from anyone among his associates,
friends, and assistants to compose any. Societies do not need theories composed
by irrelevant individuals to prosper and survive. States do not need ideologies
to be established, developed and improved. Governments do not need
philosophical systems to opt for the correct decision and to act drastically
and effectively.
Societies can radiate
and expand or regress and disappear due to the creative (or destructive)
initiative of their members; societies' welfare hinges on moral principles and
virtues, cultural integrity, knowledge, wisdom, inventiveness, productivity, and
solidarity.
States can thrive and
triumph or decline and vanish because of the skills of their elites to
comprehensively perceive the world, the ability of their rulers to creatively
conceptualize the universe, the capability of their spiritual masters to
inculcate the entire nation with the true meaning of their identity and the particular
values of their culture, and the talent of their military in terms of proper
contextualization (balance of power), foe identification, and threat prediction
and elimination.
Governments can succeed
and excel or fail and fall thanks to the accuracy of their assessments, the
realism of their purposes, the effectiveness of their targets, the alternative
approaches that they develop, the innovative methods that they employ, and the
inventive tactics that they implement.
The above is enough to
explain why Kemal Ataturk was always unrelated to theories, political
ideologies, any worthless intellectualism, and every attempt to locally institute
a cult of personality (in striking contrast with inferior rulers like Stalin,
Mao, Hitler and others). The founder of Modern Turkey was a practical and
effective ruler, and as such he was a simple person with no complexes of
inferiority and no other detrimental psychological problems and anomalies like those
that characterize many contemporary politicians and statesmen. Quite
unfortunately, as it happened many times throughout History, several people
around him did not have his dedication, commitment, courage and zeal; they paid
only lip service to his instructions and did not follow his outstanding example.
They were close to him not because they wanted to offer their lives for the
national salvation and advance of Anatolia, but due to utilitarian calculations
and to material benefits that they intended to extract.
In few cases, around
Kemal Ataturk, there were also agents of the English and the French secret
services; they reported to their masters insightful details, they were guided
by the colonial powers in their steps, and they acted in many different ways in
order to gradually divert the newly established state from its orbit, modify
the fundamental concepts stipulated within the 1923 Constitution, and reduce
Turkey to a mere tool of the colonial powers' plans. For this to do, these
agents, who were disguised as passionate admirers and followers of Ataturk, carried
out a low intensity sabotage that lasted for long.
The basic colonial plan
providing for the destruction of the entire Islamic World included also methods
related to the following:
1- exploitation of the
religious feelings up to turning the believers to narrow-minded idiots,
2- diffusion of
bogus-Islamic theological systems that mentally incapacitate those who believe
them,
3- promotion of
pseudo-religious obscurantism that makes the people disregard -if not
disrespect- other cultures, systems of spirituality, literatures, religions,
arts and civilizations,
4- encouragement of
abject ignorance, which is a guarantee that the targeted nation will be
divided, plunged into civil wars, and incapacitated to cope with the world's
leading powers,
5- stimulation of
vicious disregard for Turkey's new, secular educational system, which should
have been copied and implemented across all Muslim nations,
6- incitement of hatred
against the secular state, whereas all Muslim nations should be organized in
secular states,
7- exhortation for
opposition against the authorities, whereas all Muslims, and all nations across
Asia, Africa and Latin America must be educated, prepared and predetermined to
destroy the colonial states and take revenge for the Crimes against the Mankind
that were perpetrated during the colonial era and the post-colonial (or
neo-colonial) times,
8- inspiration of accentuated
religious division among Muslims, and
9- cultivation of disrepesct
for Kemal Ataturk, etc.; the last five methods constitute an unprecedented
discharge of venom that turns every unconscious recipients not only to fake
Muslims and hypocrites but to inhuman beasts that have no place on Earth.
It would not be however
strange to attest similar practices and policies in the territories of France
and England in Africa and Asia, because the colonial gangsters did their best
to spread barbarism and hatred from India to Egypt to Algeria. But it is
impressive to notice that in Turkey, even at the time of Kemal Ataturk, several
people among his associates and followers carried out some of the above methods
in a clandestine manner, being confident that their colonial masters would
later promote them to high positions in the government.
This is the way all the
so-called 'revolts' commenced in Kemal Ataturk's Turkey; initially these events
were nothing more than simple protests, which were due to the fact that the
groundbreaking changes introduced by the founder of Turkey were not duly
explained, extensively discussed, systematically propagated or -if you prefer- effectively
marketed among vast populations that could not understand the essence of, and
the need for, these changes. After the early stage of these demonstrations,
when high dignitaries of the state were dispatched to villages, towns, and
cities in Eastern Anatolia, the situation turned worse, because some of these
officials were in reality agents of the colonial powers and deliberately
worsened the troubles, causing havoc and bloodshed in an effort to shake the
state of Kemal Ataturk from its foundations.
A typical example a
similar state dignitary was the pathetic crypto-Islamist, disreputable traitor,
and agent of the British Intelligence, İhsan Sabri Çağlayangil (1908-1993),
former Minister of Foreign Affairs, President of the Senate, and Acting
President of Turkey for five months in 1980 (before being overthrown – thank
God – by the military coup of General Kenan Evren). There were several people
like him back in the late 20s and early 30s; idiotic Muslim conservatives,
so-called Sunni laymen, they hated Kemal Ataturk just 'because he abolished the
Caliphate'. They were unable to understand that, with the gradual collapse and the
advanced decomposition of the Ottoman Empire over the period 1798-1923, the
term "Islamic Caliphate" had already become -in and by itself- a
synonym to "parody", "misery", "failure", and
"disgrace".
Even before Kemal
Ataturk abolished it, the Islamic Caliphate was the World History's perfect
example to avoid, i.e. the epitome of the most disastrous dereliction. These
useless 'Sunni' conservative idiots were unable to understand the word
'self-criticism' in any language across the Earth. Consequently, they were
easily recruited by the Istanbul-based agents of the English and French
colonials, who -by means of flattery, bribery and false promises- employed them
against Turkey and Kemal Ataturk. They were customarily instructed to publicly appear
as pro-Ataturk, to become CHP party members, and to pretend to serve the cause
of the secular state, while in reality they were continually instructed as to
how to erode it from inside.
Çağlayangil, at the age
of 29, was a low level official dispatched to Tunceli (then Dersim) with the
task to supervise the trial of Seyit Riza (1863-1937), a Zaza Alevi imam, who
protested against various omissions in the new manuals of History and other
cultural-educational issues. Seyit Riza was personally known to Kemal Ataturk,
whom he had met and discussed with. Contrarily to the unspeakable lies
contained with the purposefully fallacious Western colonial bibliography, the
Dersim protests did not have any national/ethnic character, and all the Zaza
believed that they were Turks, which is actually the historical truth. What was
at stake then was a matter of spiritual, cultural and educational nature. It
was not an ethnic conflict at all.
The Dersim protesters
demanded a more stressed presentation of the Anatolian Alevi culture within the
historical manuals of the Turkish secular education. These demands exacerbated
the rancor of the filthy crypto-Sunni traitors, the puppets and spies of the
colonial powers, who used to posture as 'Kemalists' at those days. In this
manner, the old Sunni theological odium against the Anatolian Spirituality and
the Mevlevi and Bektashi Orders was rekindled. However, these two spiritual
orders were already outlawed and banned by Kemal Ataturk, because they had
already been infiltrated by evil theologians, gone astray, and become
pointless, ineffective and worthless.
Although the vicious
murderer Çağlayangil had the power to offer rightful guidance to the judges and
to explain to them the reasons for which the evidently innocent imam Seyit Riza
had to be acquitted and the whole issue had to be peacefully terminated, he
deliberately forced them to condemn him to death. In this manner, the
crypto-Sunni criminal Çağlayangil had Seyit Riza hanged, because his colonial
masters wanted much blood to be shed, so that they can reactivate all sorts of sectarian
divisions in Turkey anytime they would choose as per their interests.
After Ataturk's death, Çağlayangil
shamelessly continued comfortably posturing as 'Kemalist', which is of course a
disgrace for Modern Turkey, but in Anatolia he is irrevocably remembered until
today as the 'malignant executor' and the 'Dersim butcher'.
In fact, the so-called
Kemalists appeared as such only to stage manage the hijack and the holdup of
the state of Kemal Ataturk. It was not a military coup, but a theatrical play staged
after the death of Kemal Ataturk and interpreted by his vicious and venomous
enemies, who had been earlier masqueraded as his associates, assistants and
followers. The Anglophile pseudo-Freemason İsmet İnönü was the first among
them; his catastrophic tenure (1938-1950) served only the English interests, and
he was good enough only to materialize the three primary colonial targets:
a) turn the unitary,
solidary, and monolithic society of Turkey, which was organized on the basis of
a one-party system (CHP), and the equitable and magnificent state of Kemal
Ataturk into a Western political swamp, a monstrous 'democratic' tyranny, and a
multi-party elite dissociated from the average people;
b) keep Turkey out of
WWII as a neutral partner of England and the US – at the detriment of Turkey's
interests in Caucasus, Iran, Central Asia, and all the previously Ottoman
territories. This policy did not have catastrophic consequences only for Turkey,
but also for the wider region, and the entire world; and
c) prepare the terrain
for the first Islamist 'product' of the West, i.e. the execrable and perverse crypto-Islamist
Adnan Menderes, who became prime minister of Turkey only after being helped by İnönü,
subsidized by Western stooges in Turkey, and promoted by the Western embassies.
Menderes' primary task
(ordered by his Western masters) was to dismantle the state of Kemal Ataturk.
The fact that he signed Turkey's entry to NATO (18/2/1952), thus abandoning
Turkey's neutrality, which had been the cornerstone of the state's foreign
policy for more than three decades, demonstrates very clearly that all
Islamists are products of the colonial powers and traitors of their own
countries. The shameful and treacherous Menderes worked hard for ten years in
order to destroy the pillars of Turkey's national independence, preparing
Ankara for full American tutelage. Thank God, he was overthrown by a military coup
d'état (27 May 1960) undertaken by young officers who had not been contaminated
like most of the Turkish generals due to their contacts with NATO, English and
US officers. However, the problem is that the treacherous policies introduced
by İsmet İnönü and pursued by Menderes left deep traces in Turkey's political
life.
From the 1960s to the
early 2000s, the tragicomical play of Kemalism was staged incessantly in full
disrespect of Kemal Ataturk's legacy and memory; some Kemalists would appear as
conservative under Süleyman Demirel, an anti-American puppet of the English
colonials, whereas others would propagate social democratic ideas under Bülent Ecevit,
an American stooge, balanced politician, and intellectual with strong background
in Bengali and Sanskrit. Both tendencies had nothing in common with the typical
practices, approaches and perceptions of the founder of Modern Turkey; the
former group was at the antipodes of Kemal Ataturk's Devrimcilik (Reformism; also
defined as inkılapçılık), whereas the latter promoted an enormous distortion of
Kemal Ataturk's Devletçilik, which does not imply 'statism' and 'state-run
economy' but underscores the role of the state in promoting and guaranteeing modernization,
economic sanitization, and free market economy.
Carrying out,
step-by-step, the worst distortion of Kemal Ataturk's heritage for more than
four decades, Kemalists reflect Shakespeare's following verses better than anybody
else in the world, thus revealing what they truly are:
"the best
actors in the world, either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral,
pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical,
tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited.
Seneca cannot be too heavy, nor Plautus too light. For the law of writ and the
liberty, these are the only men"
Hamlet: Act 2 Scene 2
The decades-long
theatrical play involved also a most decorous scene: portraits, busts and
statues of Kemal Ataturk started being placed everywhere. This is actually the
way I, personally, came to understand that 'Kemalism' and 'Kemalists' for
Turkey's ruling classes meant simply "ruling in the name of Kemal Ataturk,
while implementing coincidentally opportune policies that have nothing in
common with the perceptions, the approaches, the methods, and the practices demonstrated
by the founder of Turkey".
I must confess that -thank
God- I realized this troublesome situation very early, and more precisely in
1974, when I was just 18 years old; it was all due to my persistence to invite
my father to the cinema so that we watch the famous Murder on the Orient
Express, which was directed by Sidney Lumet and featured an exceptional, all-star
crew. As my father preferred Maurice Leblanc's Arsène Lupin to Agatha Christie's
Hercule Poirot as novel character, my only chance to convince him to come with
me was the superb presence in the movie of his beloved Ingrid Bergman. Istanbul
is an important setting in the early part of the movie, and several scenes were
shot in the Sirkeci Railway station (built in 1890), which -back in the 1930s (when
the novel plot is set)- was the eastern terminus of the Orient Express.
My father was quick to
understand that the filmmakers made several mistakes; in one shot, an enormous
portrait of Kemal Ataturk appears on a wall. My father, who lived in Turkey
during the major part of Ataturk's tenure, laughed regrettingly and made a
negative comment, stating that there were no portraits of the founder of Modern
Turkey in Turkey while he was alive. Apparently, this was a major mistake of
the film's set designer. This can be easily noticed in this part of the movie:
12:19-12:22 (2:01:56); you can watch it here: https://vk.com/video434648441_456240441
And this concludes the
case of the Kemalists, who for many decades attempted to merge to good and the
evil, and to combine virtue and depravity; their 'Kemal Ataturk' was therefore
a caricature of Oriental pompous arrangments and Occidental hypocritical
backstage. When the conservative and social-democrat Kemalists were divided,
each into two parties, back in the early 1990s, many -even highly placed
magistrates and military officers- believed that these divisions were due to
personal feuds; they were all wrong. There was no personal antagonism; there
was Western (US, English, French, and German) interference, manipulation and
machination.
In 1995, there was
absolutely no difference between Tansu Çiller (Doğru Yol Partisi; True Path
Party – 19.18%) and Mesut Yılmaz (Anavatan Partisi; Motherland Party – 19.65%);
and Bülent Ecevit (Demokratik Sol Partisi; Democratic Left Party – 14.64%) and
Deniz Baykal (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi; Republican People's Party – 10.71%) did
not differ in anything. The two conservative parties had together 39% of the
voters; and the two social-democratic parties together accounted for 25% of the
voters. Refah Partisi (Necmettin Erbakan's party) was first with only 21.38%.
Only because of the electroral law, two parties (Refah Partisi and Doğru Yol
Partisi) totaling 40.5% of the voters formed a majority government that was rejected
by the parliamentarians of three parties (Anavatan Partisi, Demokratik Sol
Partisi, and Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) supported by 45% of the voters. It
appeared as the total oxymoron, but it was carefully planned – by the criminal
gangsters of US, NATO, England and France.
One must confess that,
in the euphoria of those days, few people were shrewd enough to realize that
the end was very close, and that to prevent the end from coming, Kemal Ataturk's
principles had to immediately and solemnly be restated, his values reinstated,
and his practices reinvigorated. However, these people were persecuted,
defamed, and kicked out, following the intervention of several Western
ambassadors, consuls, and intelligence service agents; even Lady Diana's murder
organizers were involved in that story. These people however knew very well that
there were no conservatism and no social democracy in Ataturk.
Revealing the truth to
the average Turks would then be a very shocking experience, because the vast
majority of the population was convinced that all the party leaders and members
had undeniable and impeccable credentials of Kemalism. This was exactly the
problem; Ataturk never demanded for a Kemalist ideology to posthumously
substitute him. The founder of Modern Turkey wanted his successors to continue having
the same perception that he had, deploying the same methods that he did,
developing the same approaches that he exemplified, and carrying out the same
practices that he introduced and indicated as correct.
Even more ridiculous
were the results of the fake elections of 2002. If Tansu Çiller (9.54%) and Mesut
Yılmaz (5.13%), who had basically identical political programs, were united in
one conservative party, they would surpass the 10% limit, enter the parliament,
and prevent the Islamists from having majority. They would then form the next government,
striking an alliance with Deniz Baykal (19.39%) as prime minister. This
development would automatically place Turkey within the European Union, and
this was exactly what several Western European countries did not want – not
because of the fake pretext of Islamism (that they use now thanks to Erdogan's
unnecessary existence, and which did not exist at the time), but because they
would lose their privileges, due to the simple fact that in such case the
numbers would speak for themselves: UK, Poland and Turkey would destroy once
for all the ominous 'German-French axis'.
The Turkish general elections
of 2002 were a shameful matter of unprecedented Western involvement,
manipulation and machination; for the colonial targets against Turkey to be easily achieved the
entire Turkish political life was further multi-divided, and new parties
appeared being generously subsidized by foreign embassies only for the
fraudulent purpose of placing an Islamist government in Ankara.
Cem Uzan, a successful
businessman (whose enterprises were later confiscated by the Islamists,
following specific US-UK orders), launched a liberal party (7.25%) with the
help of France; Ismail Cem, former Foreign Minister, formed his own party
(fully financed by the CIA) and got 1.15%; Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu, a former MHP
(Pan-Turkist) deputy (1991, 1995), who had already formed his party (Büyük
Birlik Partisi–BBP; Great Unity Party) in 1993 with the help of some German
international circles, was able to reach 1.02%, which was enough to force
Devlet Banceli (Alparslan Türkeş' successor and MHP leader) out of the
parliament (because of his meager 8.36%), which was also due to the extreme political
multi-division and to the participation of another, minor, Pan-Turkist party in
the electoral fraud of 2002.
Thus, the stage was
prepared for the next theatrical play, namely the false dilemma 'Islamists vs.
Kemalists', which is nothing more than the Oriental version of the duel between
'I Capuleti e i Montecchi' (the Capulets and the Montagues). Deputies from all
the political parties of today's Turkey are idiotic enough to still believe
that the founder of Turkey wanted to 'please' the French and the English and
for this reason he 'westernized' the country. Only besotted and demented people
can possibly believe this. Many brainless Kemalists support therefore various
branches of pro-Western and Western ideologies only to deliberately express a
sentimental reaction against the Islamists, and because they erroneously assume
that the Islamists are anti-Western, whereas the Islamists are the very
products and the true enfants gâtés of the Western colonial world. Some people
would be ready to attempt to denigrate these pro-Westerners as 'fake
Kemalists', but that is wrong indeed; all Kemalists are fake. The true
supporters of Kemal Ataturk are those, who properly value without
misinterpreting his example and comprehensively exemplify him in their own
perceptions, approaches, methods, and practices.
Pro-Western Kemalists are
indeed the worst enemies of Kemal Ataturk's legacy and example; they terribly
distort the very words of the founder of Turkey. In this regard, the
distinguished Prof. Erol Manisalı, widely considered as Turkey's foremost
Kemalist but in reality consisting in Turkey's most genuine interpreter of
Kemal Ataturk's mindset, concepts, choices and decisions, reminded Ataturk's
true words to everyone in an excellent article that was recently published
(1/12/2020) in Turkey's most acclaimed
newspaper Cumhuriyet under the meaningful title "Erdoğan’ın 'Avrupa
çıkışı'nın arkası" (Behind Erdogan's 'European exit'). After a brief but
very convincing analysis, the venerable academician made a sentence only to
include a most crucial statement made back in the 1920s by Kemal Ataturk:
«"İstikametimiz Avrupa değil, bilim ve çağdaş uygarlık değerleridir"
dedi». («"Our destination is not Europe, but science and contemporary
civilization values", he said»). https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/erol-manisali/erdoganin-avrupa-cikisinin-arkasi-1795152
Post WWII Europe
abandoned the values of contemporary civilization and now, along with America,
will get decomposed and disappear. It is high time for Turkey's Kemalists to
abandon their pseudo-ideology and to return to the true perceptions,
approaches, methods, and practices of Kemal Ataturk, as enshrined in the 1923
Constitution. Otherwise, the theatrical play, i.e. the false dilemma 'Islamists
vs. Kemalists' (Capulets vs. Montagues), will be performed in all its majestic
tragedy. The vicious colonial propaganda, as per which the Turkish political
life revolves around two poles, namely the Islamists and the Kemalists, is a
poisonous lie; this is the poison, which at the end kills both, Romeo and
Juliet.
Kemalists and Islamists
have very little time left before they
- overwhelmingly break
all negotiations with EU,
- unilaterally withdraw
Turkey from NATO,
- immediately ensure
full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation,
- re-organize and rearm
the Turkish army after the Chinese model,
- offer China sizable
naval bases in the Mediterranean (Bodrum) and in the Black Sea (Iğneada, Demirköy,
Kırklareli province),
- launch a nation-wide
alternative to the global Internet (dubbed Turannet) in cooperation with China,
Russia and Iran (projected to also include Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan),
- open ten (10) Chinese
universities in Turkey and ten (10) Turkish universities in China, thus
progressively making Chinese the first foreign language in Turkey, and
- turn the region of Kaş
(Antalya province) into the Sea Route's major harbor and trade hub in the
Meduterranean for the New Silk Road (OBOR - One Belt One Road) project, and
link it with the Balkan Peninsula via a new highway and a high speed railway through
Denizli, Uşak, Balıkesir, a Çardak - Gelibolu underwater tunnel (Çanakkale
Boğazı; 'Strait of Çanakkale'), and Edirne.
Re-orienting 21st c.
Turkey toward the East, and more specifically China, is the only correct, new
strategic choice that corresponds exactly to what Kemal Ataturk did before 100
years, when he re-oriented the Ottoman Empire toward the West, thus founding
Modern Turkey. Turkey's Drang nach Osten is the only magnificent project that
would truly be as groundbreaking and as
world-shattering as Kemal Ataturk's enduring legacy. Such a move will be the
world's terminal endgame changer. It will catapult Turkey to worldwide
supremacy as one of the five main superpowers of tomorrow's world, impose the
Anatolian-Mesopotamian-Iranian-Turanian Cultural Heritage as the Epicenter of
World History, force the Mankind to revolve around the New Silk Road, and
terminate the corrupt, useless and barbarian Western World irrevocably.
