Turkey, the US & 21st c. Geopolitics: the Advice I gave to the Turkish Establishment back in the mid-90s
By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
The changes occurred in the period 1989 – 1991 have not until now been accurately evaluated; neither have their consequences been assessed. In the folly of those days, few perspicacious persons were able to see that, with the collapse of the so-called ‘Eastern bloc’, the decomposition and demise of the so-called ‘Western bloc’ was automatically heralded. The destruction of the then international order’s second pillar would then only be a matter of time, i.e. few decades.
I. 1989-1991 and the Collapse of Post-WW II False Order
The American elite, political or academic, must have realized the ensued dangers and that’s why they tried to amuse and confuse the world with much publicized, yet inane, pseudo-doctrines, like the Clash of Civilizations and the End of History. These unreal, yet barbarian and evil, concepts were elaborated only as preventive tactics for the US to avoid the unavoidable.
In fact, the astute observation that the fall of the ‘Eastern bloc’ would sooner or later bring forth the eradication of the ‘Western bloc’ had little to do with the common, yet nonsensical, assumption that the events of the period 1989 – 1991 would have a political – ideological or a financial – economic or even a social – intellectual impact. These types of impact are indeed minor, if the events are evaluated from a historian’s viewpoint.
In reality, the formation of the post-WW II international order was an abnormal, artificial construction, pretty much like the establishment of the post-WW I world order. The difference is that in the period between the two world wars there appeared to still exist, act and evolve – within the context of human life – several human and spiritual forces and factors that were totally concealed out of the artificial post-WW II world. Then, the collapse of one major constituent of that fake world would automatically unleash at least part of the concealed forces and factors whose dynamics in turn would easily bring down the rest of the artificial fabrication.
So, all post 1989-1991 developments have in reality little to do with the proper impact that the event itself has had (which was minor) and are mainly due to the forceful comeback of earlier concealed forces.
It was therefore predestined – from the very elements of the dynamics created by the results of the two world wars – that the winners of those early and minor conflicts would inevitably be the losers of the end times’ war.
And as early as 1992 and 1993, it became clear to few that North America and Western Europe had lost the chance – if they ever had any – to advance fast and effectively in the prevention of the forthcoming collapse of the ‘Western bloc’.
The above was very clear in my mind, when I moved to Turkey in September 1994 to work for universities, foundations and institutes, to participate in several academic and political projects, to advise the military and political establishment on several issues, to speak in public and in secluded circles, and to contribute to the universal(ist) ideals and principles defended and promoted by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
II. Kemal Ataturk and today’s Turkish Establishment
Back in the 90s, there were many Turks, who would automatically ascribe themselves to Kemal Atatürk’s ideals and the principles. And I believe that by now their number has decreased only by little.
There were indeed in 1990s’ Turkey several leading academics, diplomats, politicians and statesmen, generals and intellectuals, as well as military intelligence officers, who were very well informed about the nature of the aforementioned world developments, which then were still quite recent. I therefore encountered and worked with brilliant people, like Prof. Erol Manisalı (whom I first met in the late 80s) and film director Halit Refiğ; with both of them I had frequent meetings, lengthy discussions, and fruitful polarizations. They had already understood what the global developments really meant and what the forthcoming circumstances would be like. The ensuing dangers for Turkey were very clear to them.
The same concerns a pleiad of other distinguished personalities whom I encountered on several occasions, namely Ambassador Umut Arık, Prof. Reşat Genç of the venerated Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Prof. Gönül Tankut, Prof. Hüseyin Hatemi, Prof. Kutlu Emre, Ambassador İsmail Soysal, Prof. Metin Sözen, Şemsettin Bağırkan the true savant of Ottoman Classical Music, Prof. Yusuf Halaçoğlu of the celebrated Türk Tarih Kurumu, Prof. Yılmaz Altuğ, my one-time colleague Prof. Emel Doğramacı, and many others involving former prime ministers Tansu Ciller and Necmettin Erbakan.
As a matter of fact, the clumsy American efforts to avoid the unavoidable and the then newly emitted pseudo-doctrines would only help bring the dismemberment of the ‘Western bloc’ faster; by so doing, the US was de facto self-positioned as enemy of Turkey, because the aforementioned pseudo-doctrines – by their genuine distortion of the historical truth and due to their disregard of the international order – targeted the country directly.
The inanity of people like Huntington and Fukuyama is tragicomical indeed! By trying to ‘remake the world order’ (this is part of Huntington’s title: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order), they contributed to the demolition of the ‘Western bloc’. Their suicidal effort resembled very much indeed the suicide bombers trained by the CIA and the Mosad in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere. To remake the world order, they solemnly and explicitly decomposed the elements of the remaining ‘Western bloc’. To prevent the forthcoming destruction, they precipitated it.
Since 1994, it was clear to the aforementioned leading figures and to others in Turkey that Turkey was threatened with exclusion from the ‘Western bloc’ and with dismemberment pretty much like several other countries for which the same ominous fate was prescribed.
However, for every action there is a reaction, and for every scheme there is a way to outmaneuver it. In the mid 90s, I spoke extensively and I expanded in written form (not always public) about what it would take for Turkey to oppose the plans providing for its destruction. When I left Turkey in 1997, I knew that, by staying inactive, Ankara was playing indeed into the US game. In fact, what occurs now between Turkey and the US could have already happened before 20 years.
It was just a matter of time, appeasement policies, and procrastination as regards the need for a proper geopolitical concept as regards 21st c. Turkey. This attitude would drive to nowhere and Turkey has been a great loser over the past two decades, which is what then inimical, mainstream mass media hide (as this situation suits the interests that they serve), by making either misplaced eulogies or conflated descriptions (of the type ‘Erdogan is unpredictable and dangerous’ & ‘Erdogan is a new sultan’!).
Why did the Turkish establishment fail to drastically react against US plans over the past 20 years?
III. Factors that prevented the Turkish Establishment from timely Disentangling from the ‘Western bloc’
A. Failure to accurately and integrally assess Kemal Atatürk’s Vision of State
The Founder of Turkey, as a genuine pragmatist, did not found an ideology-based state. There is no such thing as ideology, political ideology or political philosophy; those endeavors are all forms of anti-historical forgery composed and diffused in order to unnecessarily and viciously trigger calamitous developments. They are worthless propaganda, and every propaganda is worthless, pathetic and evil. World History does not encompass ideologies, political ideologies or political philosophies because all those systems are mere propaganda tools deprived of historicity, morality and veracity, having therefore no ingenuous contents; they all constitute forms of forgery and fallacy that serve the enslavement of the nations and the destruction of Human Life.
Actually, there are no ideologists, political ideologists or political scientists and those who pretend or are said to be are either disoriented idiots or degenerate paranoids or motivated agents. This is easy to understand as there have never been ideologists, political ideologists or political scientists in the World History prior to Modern Times; but Modern Times are the period of worldwide deception which was incepted in order to precisely trigger the enslavement of the nations and the destruction of Human Life.
As Kemal Ataturk did not found an ideology-based state, what was later attributed to him as ‘kemalism’ hinges on particular interests to deform and alter his real practices. As a matter of fact, one of the six principles of Turkey, Halkçılık (which is not accurately translated as ‘Populism’ in English / the correct translation would be ‘rule by the people and for the people’) clearly opposes all ideologies.
People ruling their society need no -ism, no ideology. In fact, every -ism, every ideology is an intentional distortion of a self-ruled society, which occurs by introducing unnecessary and evil elites. Prior to the Modern Times, there were never ‘elites’, and every opposite claim is genuinely criminal, utterly fallacious, and historically false; it constitutes a premeditated misinterpretation of History. To this historical reality Kemal Ataturk ascribed himself.
I would rather translate Halkçılık as ‘People’s Sovereignty’; in this regard, every ideology, philosophical system, theoretical structure (of ethnic / racial, religious or political order) generated by an elite member (academic, scientist, philosopher, intellectual, etc.) automatically threatens people’s sovereignty and is therefore to be rejected. People’s sovereignty is incompatible with theories and ideas emitted by segregated individuals.
As a matter of fact, the translation of the six principles of Turkey with English words ending in – ism is sheer, if not deliberate, distortion and forceful alteration of the historical reality. This is so, because nouns ending in -ism in English are relevant of ideologies (conservatism, liberalism, etc).
Even worse, the entire phenomenon of Turkey’s foundation by Kemal Atatürk is fallaciously viewed by Western scholars in terms of a hypothetical, yet nonexistent, ideology: Kemalism. Kemalism never existed, because Kemal Atatürk was not a ‘philosopher’, did not compose an ‘ideology’, and never accepted ‘politics’.
Look now at this erroneous Wikipedia entry: “There are six fundamental pillars (ilke) of the ideology” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalism)!
Where are these principles (not ‘pillars’; ilke means ‘principle’) first stated?
In the 1924 Constitutional Law Article 2, Clause 1 (Türkiye Devleti, Cümhuriyetçi, milliyetçi, halkçı, devletçi, lâik ve inkılâpçıdır). But the Constitutional Law describes the basics of a state, not an ideology, as the wholly mistaken entry of Wikipedia states. https://web.archive.org/web/20110826235341/http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/index.php?l=template&id=20&lang=0
It is therefore essential to understand that ideologies, political philosophies, and related systems derive from politics, but Kemal Atatürk did not use a word about ‘politics’, was not a ‘politician’, and – as I already said – never accepted or carried out politics. This is evident in the basic texts of the state that he founded and in his 19-year long practice of rule.
Many confuse Atatürk’s modernization of the social structures with a certain, nebulous, Westernization, but the fact that until Atatürk’s death Turkey had only one party speaks for itself. The Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi in the beginning was not a ‘political’ party; it was the organization of all Turks who were interested in participating in the effort of reconstruction of their land. This organization was actually set up in the Sivas Congress (4-11/9/1919), which was in fact the venue of a ‘movement’, namely the Türk Ulusal Hareketi (Turkish National Movement); it was later renamed as Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi.
The Western political concept of ‘ideological, political parties’ did not exist in the nascent state’s territories in 1919 and it was virulently prohibited in 1924. Now, you can read for yourself and, after identifying Wikipedia’s enormous distortions, get the correct meaning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivas_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_National_Movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_People%27s_Party_(Turkey)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_period_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey
Politics is the focus of evil in modern societies, but politics lay far from Kemal Atatürk. Modern definitions of politics are part of the problem, as they try to shed confusion as regards the nature of politics. Example: ” Politics (from Greek: πολιτικά, translit. Politiká, meaning “affairs of the cities”) is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group. It refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community, particularly a state. In modern nation-states, people have formed political parties to represent their ideas. They agree to take the same position on many issues and agree to support the same changes to law and the same leaders”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics)
This is entirely false; even the translation from Ancient Greek is wrong. It is not ‘the affairs of the cities’ but ‘the affair of the city’, and it means only a small city that was not organized as kingdom, because otherwise the city would be a ‘kingdom’ and would have no politics!
DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS STARTED IN MESOPOTAMIAThe ‘affair of the city’ did indeed appear as a form of non royal, social organization and administration in 4th millennium BCE Mesopotamia; this early democratic system of rule can be called ‘politics’ but it had no notion of today’s decayed and corrupt, inhuman politics. It lasted several hundreds of years among the Sumerian cities-states of Southern Mesopotamia, before the rise of priesthood and royalty put an end to it, by imposing the spiritual concept of Celestial Order among humans. This Primitive Democracy is very well documented by means of early Sumerian texts and archaeological evidence that shows total absence of palaces, temples and major buildings. One has to admit that the notion of ‘state’ was elementary in that period.DEMOCRACY IN 2ND MILLENNIUM BCE ELAM – SOUTHERN TRANSTIGRITANELater on, ‘politics’ and ‘democracy’ appear again in the 2nd millennium BCE Mesopotamia and Transtigritane, long before the few ancient Greek cities-states that were not ruled by kings were organized as either oligarchies, tyrannies or democracies. When most of the world’s civilized countries were organized in universal empires and kingdoms that reflected the Celestial Order (Assyria, Babylonia, the Hittite Empire, the Hurrian kingdoms, Canaanite Ugarit, Pharaonic Egypt, the Cushitic Kerma kingdom, etc.), Elam (known as ‘Anshan and Sushan’ in Ancient Elamite, which was the local language, ‘Elam’ being the Assyrian-Babylonian appellation of that land) was ruled without kings for several hundreds of years. Ancient Elam was the earliest form of ancient state that was ruled by local, elected executive officers, known as the Sukkalmahhu (‘mayors’) and mainly documented in Assyrian – Babylonian texts (http://evariste.lefeuvre.free.fr/culture/elcoa/elam.htm).DEMOCRACY IN 1ST MILLENNIUM BCE MEDITERRANEAN: A PJOENICIAN – CARTHAGINIAN INVENTION AND PRACTICE LONG BEFORE IT WAS EXPORTED AMONG GREEKS AND ROMANSIn the Mediterranean world, politics and democracy emerged first among the Phoenician colonies, Carthage, and the Carthaginian colonies of Western Mediterranean and Northwestern Africa; this is so because the Phoenician kings were located faraway to rule their colonies; a non royal form of self rule was then instituted. However, the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians impacted the Pelasgians, the Lycians, the Carians, the Ionians, the Aeolians, the Achaeans, the Dorians, the Caphthor – Cretans, the Sicilians, the Sardinians and other nations in Western Anatolia, South Balkans, the Italian Peninsula, and the islands of the Mediterranean. In all those lands, Phoenicians and Carthaginians diffused the basic notions of non royal rule and administration. |
Kemal Atatürk understood quite well that Western politics (as practiced until his times) were a fraudulent fallacy, which by means of representatives usurped people’s sovereignty. That’s why in numerous cases he stated that Hakimiyet Kayıtsız Şartsız Milletindir (Sovereignty belongs unrestrictedly and unconditionally to the people/nation). Thence, the importance of halkçılık, people’s sovereignty.
To put it in simple words, Atatürk made of the people the Emperor of an Empire named Türkiye. This, quite unfortunately, was not evident to the so-called Kemalist friends of mine in Turkey, all those who evoked his name but thought and lived otherwise back in the 1990s.
B. The Real Meaning of the Six Principles of Kemal Ataturk’s State
How to render in English the six principles of Atatürk’s state?
Cumhuriyetçilik – it has to do with the Arabic word jumhur, ‘public’ or ‘majority’ (مذبح الجمهور / madhhab al-jumhur). This comes as opposition to both, the hereditary rule (monarchy) and the religious – spiritual rule. It is very wrong to call ‘republicanism’ this approach to state structure and to social organization; in reality, the correct translation of the term cumhuriyetçilik would be ‘public, not hereditary rule, and separation between public affairs and spirituality’. Turkey’s cumhuriyetçilik has very little to do with 18th – 20th c. Western republicanism.
Halkçılık – as already explained, this means ‘people’s sovereignty’.
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.
Laiklik – this principle is falsely translated as either Secularism or Laicism. Although Wikipedia statement “it differs from the passive Anglo-American concept of secularism, but is similar to the concept of laïcité in France.” is correct to some extent, the basic definition is totally wrong: “Kemalist ideology aims to banish religious interference in government affairs”. There was no Kemalist ideology; more importantly, the practice was not only to just ‘banish religious interference in government affairs’, but to dissociate the social order from the Spirituality and the spiritual life of the people.
The concept does not affect only the government, the public administration or the state, but the entire society; it stipulates that the social life of the people is disconnected from their spiritual faith(s), religion(s) and cult(s). In fact, it makes of the faith of everyone a private affair and in doing so, it reflects the quintessence of all original faiths and religions, as per which ‘religion’ is the ‘direct connection between the human and God’, thus involving no intermediaries.
The use of word ‘laik’ in Modern Turkish must not lead to confusion with other notions and connotations; this word originates from Ancient Greek ‘laos’ which means people in opposition to ‘hierateion’ (the sacerdotal class). Since Turkey is the realm whereby Halkçılık prevails, there cannot be social classes and elites; and consequently, there cannot be priests, as they would form a separate class of their own.
Kemal Ataturk had studied History under the guidance of Rudolf von Sebottendorf, understood the realities of Muslim deviations throughout the centuries, and drawn the correct conclusion. In Early Islam, there was no priesthood at all; in fact, there must not be any priesthood in Islam; it is prohibited. The rise of the priestly class of sheikhs is the result of Islam’s deviation and Christianization, an attempt undertaken by the vicious, ignorant and barbaric pseudo-theologian Ahmed ibn Taimiyyah (13th-14th c.). Kemal Ataturk, by imposing Laiklik, solved the problem that brought down the Ottoman Empire.
It is clear that the writers, who composed the 1924 Constitutional Law, invented new words and terms in Turkish that did not exist during the Ottoman Empire. To do so, they had to be and they were actually resourceful. In fact, Halkçılık and Laiklik are the same word; what ‘halk’ means in Turkish is ‘laos’ in Greek (: people); what matters in this case is the new connotation that the writers of the 1924 Constitutional Law attributed to each word, under the guidance of Kemal Ataturk. And these new connotations fully reflect the practices that we attest in Atarurk’s times and not in later distortions or foreign uses. That’s why we cannot make any equation between ‘laiklik’ in Ataturk’s Turkey and ‘laïcité’ in France.
Devletçilik – this principle was monstrously misinterpreted by Kemal Ataturk’s renegades who were on the payroll of Western Freemasonic and Zionist nomenklatura, intelligentsia and apparatchiks. For numerous decades, these distorters of Kemal Ataturk’s evident practices used the meaning of this word (devletçilik) in order to portray the founder of Turkey as a defender of state-run economy, as a supporter of socioeconomic ideas related to Communism or Nazism, and as a pioneer of hydrocephalic bureaucracy. This falsehood finds its way with the false translation of devletçilik as ‘statism’.
The Turkish word state ‘devlet’ originates from the Farsi and Arabic words ‘Dowlah’, which also mean ‘state’. But as principle by which the new state’s function had to abide, devletçilik does not mean state-run economy or statism or prevalence of the state in every person’s daily life and economic activity.
In fact, Kemal Ataturk’s governmental practices during the period 1923-1938 clearly show the meaning of this word and the true connotation that the writers of the 1924 Constitutional Law attributed to it; they truly nationalized many companies. But they did so in order to restructure the companies and then they offered them to the private initiative. Kemal Ataturk was obviously against the idea of the state running the economy; but the state had to be there not to intervene but to rectify troubles, solve problems, eliminate clutter, and reinstate free market rules. As long as Kemal Ataturk was alive, there was no state interventionism in Turkey in the sense this term is used nowadays.
Devletçilik means therefore that the state umpires every time a need arises for this; this does not apply only to economy, but to justice, education and other aspects of social life as well.
Devrimcilik (or at times İnkılapçılık) – this principle should not be translated as ‘reformism’ in English, because this term is already heavily impacted ideologically and is therefore unrelated to the connotation attributed to it during Kemal Ataturk’s times. Devrim means ‘reform’ or ‘reformation’ in Turkish. İnkılap is a loan from Farsi and Arabic; it is often translated as ‘revolution’ but this is wrong. Revolution in Arabic is ‘thawrah’ (ثورة). Enqelab (انقلاب) means ‘coup’, ‘reverse’ or ‘upheaval’. In Farsi, the term was used for ‘Islamic revolution’ (انقلاب اسلامی) but this is a politically motivated use.
In Ataturk’s Turkey, both terms were used totally deprived of any related connotation; they actually meant ‘readiness for continuous updates in order to keep the pace with changes’; in this sense, one can associate the term with ‘reform’ but not as an idea or an ideological indoctrination, but as a practical necessity – whenever and wherever it appears.
Devrimcilik was then viewed as the total rejection of the Ottoman immobility, motionlessness and inability to adapt to the surrounding world’s changing realities and traits. In fact, in 15 years (1923-1938), Ataturk covered 400 years of Western changes and technological transformations, adapting the country to the 20th c. realities. It was the most resolute rejection of the silly sheikhs’ and idiotic imams’ attitude to keep the average people in permanently stagnant ignorance and darkness, detached from the realities of the world. But devrimcilik has nothing to do with an ideologized attitude and thoughtless reform (: corruption / degradation) of ideals and principles.
However, the above realities had already gone long before I first traveled to Turkey, let alone the time I moved to work there. The constitutions of 1961 and 1982 were written in total discordance with the basic principles of Kemal Ataturk’s Constitutions 1921 and (revised) 1924.
This in reality meant that back in the 1990s my Kemalist friends were trying to maintain Kemal Ataturk’s vision, principles, and heritage within a frame that does not allow this vision to exist, these principles to be implemented, and this heritage to be revered. The Turkish establishment after 1938 and notably after 1946, under Western pressure, introduced what could not be introduced in the state of Kemal Ataturk: multi-party elections.
This was not conform with the basic standards and principles of the Constitution and of Kemal Ataturk’s practices. Halkçılık (‘people’s sovereignty’) cannot coexist with the fallacy of multi-party elections. And the change was not a necessary update and reform or the state, but a sheer deviation to appease Western countries’ diplomats and politicians. In fact, multi-party elections, i.e. a masqueraded tyranny that institutes an evil elite against the people / nation, existed in several Western countries when Kemal Ataturk founded Turkey. If he considered that this element of the Western states’ structure and functions was necessary in nascent Turkey, he would introduce it as well. But he did not.
This was what back in the 1990s my friends among Turkey’s Kemalist establishment failed to assess in Kemal Atatürk’s vision of State.
C. Failure to accurately and integrally assess Kemal Atatürk’s vision of Turkey
Speaking about milliyetçilik in the previous unit, I made it clear that Kemal Ataturk, due to his spiritual master Rudolf von Sebottendorf, was at the very antipodes of the racist dimension of Nazism that prevailed in Germany after English Zionists and fake Freemasons usurped Thule Gesellschaft from its founder and forced Rudolf von Sebottendorf to escape to Turkey.
Contrarily to what most people believe or can imagine, racist crypto-Nazis are omnipresent today in the so-called Western European and North American administrations. Their racism brings misfortune to all; this is so because they diffuse fake versions of World History that are filled with racist considerations and falsehood.
Bloodlines do not exist in History; it is a fallacy and a vicious propaganda that causes wars, strives, bloodshed and destruction. Those who diffuse this propaganda do it always on purpose. Kemal Ataturk knew this reality and shaped Turkey on the sound and pertinent concept of ‘supra-national identity founded on land-based communal unity, shared historicity and integrity of cultural heritage’ (milliyetçilik).
This means that Kemal Ataturk viewed modern Turks as the true heirs of many nations, cultures and civilizations, including Ancient Mesopotamia, Caucasus, Anatolia, Balkans, and Central Asia. My good friend, the distinguished professor and academician Erol Manisali, still remembers my extensive analyses and even recently he referred to me (under my former Christian name) in a brilliant article published only last July:
“Anadolu kültürü “Pers’ten eski Roma’ya, Mezopotamya’dan Asya’ya bir sentezdir: Ben bir Sümer’im, Hitit’im, Doğu Roma’yım, Asya’yım ve Türk’üm”. Yunanlı dostum, 20 dil bilen Prof. Cosmos Megalommatis, “Klasik Uygarlığa Yeni Yaklaşımlar” başlığı altında 1980’li yıllardan beri yaptığı yayınlarda şunu söyler: “Avrupa’nın Roma ve Atina’ya oturttuğu ‘klasik uygarlık’ yanlıştır: Avrupa uygarlığı Mezopotamya’daki 20’den fazla uygarlığın bir sentezidir” tezini savunur.(*)
Atatürk’ün “tango”su ve “zeybek”i bu tezin vurucu bir özetidir. “Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene” özdeyişi de aslında, Anadolu Türkiyesi’nin bir yansımasıdır. Çanakkale’de başlayıp Dumlupınar’da biten ve Lozan’da sonuçlanan emperyalizme karşı savaşta Anadolu insanının (ve kültürünün) binlerce yıldır biriken soluğu vardır“.
The article’s title is Atatürk’te zeybek, tango ve ‘yön’ (24 Temmuz 2018 – 24 July 2018) and the entire text is to be found here:
http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/koseyazisi/1035324/Ataturk_te_zeybek__tango_ve__yon_.html
However, the problem with the Turkish Establishment back in the 1990s was that they did not know what it takes to lead a modern nation which is the true heir of many nations, cultures and civilizations, including Ancient Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Caucasus, Balkans, Russia and Central Asia. They had lost the real sense of History, and they thus could make long and eloquent discourses that did not correspond to the needs of Turkey’s
– educational and academic system
– educational – academic – cultural relations with a great number of states across Asia, Europe and Africa
– international position, and impact on the world
– basic targets of foreign policy
– obligation to outmaneuver other countries’ strategies that were in conflict with Turkey’s identity, international position, and impact on the world.
The above is a very summarized catalogue of Turkey’s academic inadequacies and disorientation. What Turkish professors used to teach at those days as History was a repetition of Western fallacies about the Orient, a dead corpus of facts and info, a boring list of numerous data with no evident connection with the present and the future. At those days, all Turks knew that they were in part the descendants of the Hittites; but not one professor explained to his students and general audience in what this affected them and what possibilities it gave them for the future – let alone how it could impact successfully Turkey’s present geopolitical situation and future aspirations.
Still, Kemal Ataturk’s vision of Turkey, as described in my analysis of the term milliyetçilik, is the epitome of World History, and of the Human Genius, as expressed throughout millennia on specific lands and parts of lands of which the Earth is composed. And this is the advice that I then gave to the Turkish Establishment.
III. The Advice that I gave to the Turkish Establishment
1. Not all the lands are equally important in terms of geographical determinism. The ‘holy’ lands matter most, but the lands that are nowadays publicized as ‘holy’ are not necessarily holy.
Megalommatis's Blog 