Tweet
HOW TURKEY IS GRADUALLY BEING COLONIZED
American Chronicle
http://www.americanchronicle.com/article s/view/92835
March 2 2009
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis March 01, 2009
In a previous article entitled ´The Colonization of Turkey´
(http://www.buzzle.com/articles /the-colonization-of-turkey.html),
I drew a historical diagram of Iran, China, Japan, and Turkey, the
only Asiatic countries that have not been colonized, at least in the
way the proper meaning of the word suggests (military occupation and
foreign administration ruling the colonized country). It is clear that
through the aforementioned I consider Russia as a basically European
country, as its historical center lies exclusively on European soil,
in the west of the Ural mountains.
Indirect Colonization and Socio-political Eclecticism
Yet, if these four Asiatic countries have not been colonized stricto
sensu, they have been indirectly colonized at all levels, economic,
political, educational, cultural and geopolitical. Here, I want
to clarify that I make a very clear distinction between voluntary
acceptance of theories, systems, ideas, practices, and policies
implemented by other countries and indirect colonialism. I would
rather identify the former as Socio-political Eclecticism.
Indirect colonialism means, on the contrary, blind acceptance of
another country´s systems, ideas, practices, and policies without a
chance for the accepting country (which is thus indirectly colonized)
to preserve its authenticity, historical integrity, cultural and
national independence. Indirect colonialism has mostly to do with
systems composed in another country by theoreticians, philosophers,
intellectuals and academia totally unrelated to the country that
becomes indirectly colonized by accepting them. It may also involve
the blind acceptance of a behavioural system.
The examples of Communist China and post-WW II Japan are quite
indicative; particularly, the Cultural Revolution was an extreme
phenomenon of de-Sinization. To accept and implement a typically
Euro-centric system of worldview (Marxism - Leninism), the Communist
Party of China tried systematically to irrevocably delete the essence
of 5000 years of Chinese Civilization, Integrity, Authenticity and
Identity. Japan´s modern society, despite the preservation of number
of traditions, doesn´t reflect what Japan has been over the past 500
years. The same can even be said for post-WW II Germany, but this is
not the subject of the present article.
Today´s Islam and Islamism: Indirect Colonization
Indirect colonization can also take the form of acceptance of a
theoretical simulacrum of a system that the indirectly colonized
country and people consider as surely their own. This is precisely
the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran; in fact, modern Islamism is
not a system emanating out of the Cultural and Political Heritage of
Islam. It is an Orientalist sub-system created in Western European
(read mainly French and English) academic and Freemasonic ateliers
that superimposes the religious element over the political only
to accommodate the colonial powers´ anti-Islamic, anti-Ottoman,
and anti-Iranian interests. As such, it has been projected on
Muslim countries in a sophisticated way only to engulf them in vain
queries, unrealistic purposes, catastrophic policies and permanent
underdevelopment.
The focus of the Islamism has certainly been the area of the so-called
Arabic speaking countries, a vast part of the Ottoman Empire that was
gradually cut off and victimized though the earlier projection of the
equally colonial and absolutely fake dogma of (Pan-)Arabism. None
of these countries has ever been Arabic, except Hedjaz, namely the
Western part of today´s Saudi Arabia. Not a single inhabitant of
the aforementioned realm (except the region of Hedjaz) is Arab,
and the mere phenomenon of linguistic arabization did not change in
anything the Aramaean, Yemenite, Coptic, Nubian, Kushitic and Berberic
identities of the greatly different (from one another) nations who have
been targeted by the colonial powers, detached from their own country
(i. e. the Ottoman Empire), and monstrously deformed following the
criminal projection of the fabricated, fake Arabic identity on them.
Yet, Islamism was viciously supported by the colonial countries and
diffused by them beyond the limited area of the so-called Arabic
speaking countries. In the late 1970s, Iran fell victim of these
colonial endeavours. Certainly, Ayatullah Khomeini and his team,
and the various administrations of the 30-year regime could never
imagine that they are real tools of the colonial powers that apparently
constitute their enemies.
However, contrarily to the Safevid Persian imperial policies, the
Islamic Republic does not reflect any real political opposition to
the colonial powers. The official Iranian claim for Vilayat-e Faqih
is not a political system, and does not provide for any opposition to
Anglo-French and American post-colonialism. The Iranian theoretical
background of the Islamic Republic is a religious system that, although
Shia, reflects Sunni schools of jurisprudence and philosophy in many
aspects. But it consists in a superimposition of the religious on the
political, and this did not occur at all at the Safevid or earlier
times. In fact, this fact relates to our modern times, and to the
colonial projections on the Islamic countries.
>From the times of the earlier Islamic dynasties down to the Ottoman and
Safevid times, the political ideology of the Caliphate and the other
imperial Islamic establishments certainly reflected Islamic values
but was not subordinated to the religion. It was the continuation
of earlier imperial political ideologies, the Sassanid Iranian, the
Eastern Roman, the Arsacid Parthian, the Imperial Roman, the Seleucid
Syrian, the Macedonian, the Achaemenid Persian, the Babylonian,
the Assyrian, and the Akkadian systems.
As imperial systems, not as religions, the Ottoman Empire, Safevid
Iran, and Mogul India enabled the world of Islam to prevail over
the rest of the world politically, economically, intellectually,
culturally, educationally, academically, and artistically. In this
case, the ´rest of the world´ was in fact limited to two realms:
Northwestern Europe and China.
The European colonial attack against these imperial systems
(something that is not the subject of the present article) involved
many methods, but the most critical one was the projection of the
Freemasonry-invented and colonially diffused Islamism, a system which
- so conveniently for the colonial powers and so pathetically for
all Muslims - superimposed the religious over the political element
within the query for an all-Islamic political entity.
This Islamic pseudo-state, in which the religious element is
superimposed over the political element, if we hypothesized that it
existed, it would be the top colonial achievement throughout the
Islamic world because it would consist in a non-political entity
(a fake state - as any state without a proper political ideology is
a fake) guided by an extreme deformation of Islam that is believed
as Islam by today´s Muslims, and even worse, this deformation of
Islam would play the role of the political ideology in that fake state.
When I speak of deformation of Islam, I mean that to the earlier
stages of prevalence of the Hanbalist school and the system of
Ibn Taimiya have been added the most recent layers of Wahhabism
and Islamic Modernism (Jemal al Din Afghani and Mohamed Abduh),
which bear a strong mark of unscreened colonial influence. As long
as today´s Islamic sheikhs, muftis, theoreticians, theologians,
and intellectuals do not reject the aforementioned layers, they
will fail to reach Islamic authenticity at either the political -
ideological or the philosophical - theological level. Accordingly,
what they call ´religion´ is totally irrelevant and illusory. But
this is again not the main subject of this article.
I expanded much on the issue of Islamism as indirect colonization,
because what was achieved by the colonial powers in Iran in 1979 is
attempted against Turkey with a 30-year delay.
Kemal Ataturk and Modern Turkey: Colonial or Anti-Colonial?
As I said earlier, a voluntary acceptance of theories, systems,
ideas, practices, and policies implemented by other countries is not
indirect colonialism. I used the term "Socio-political Eclecticism"
to describe it. This was typical of Kemal Ataturk and did characterize
the innovations he introduced in Turkey. I would not refer to the
subject but I do so only to refute Islamist literature against the
founder of Modern Turkey. This literature is abundant in Arabic
and Farsi but it progressively finds however its way to the global
mass media in several international languages due to the phenomenon
of labor immigration. In fact, Arabic speaking countries´ elites,
plunged in severe analphabetism and extreme obscurantism, have felt
for many long decades a grave complex of inferiority because Turkey
was not colonized, whereas their territories were colonized by the
English, the French, the Italians, and more recently the Americans.
The following trait is an additional testimony to the colonial nature
of the Arabic speaking countries; both parts of their regimes, the
local modernizers who want to pathetically imitate Europe and America
(and they do so without understanding the logic and the reason behind
every behavioural or theoretical particularity of the Westerners) and
the Islamists who idiotically believe in the pillars of the Islamic
Modernism and even more inanely desire the rise of an Islamic state
(deprived of political ideology and with their deformed Islam playing
the role of political ideology), hate Kemal Ataturk, revile Turkey´s
achievements (that are all due to his policies), and try to defame
them as a form of colonialism - called Turkey´s westernization.
Rejection of colonialism is not a theoretical endeavour; it is mainly
a political act. It denotes denial of the colonial powers, involving
fight and war against them, lack of contact with them, opposition to
their plans, dismantlement of their deeds and destruction of their
interests at the local level. Even more importantly, rejection of
colonialism means absolute refutation of all colonial proposals;
in fact, national sovereignty implies automatic rejection of
cooperation with colonial powers´ representatives (military, economic,
administrative, academic, spiritual, etc.) and decisive punishment
of all those who betraying their nation, for their own economic sake,
collaborate in any form with the colonial powers´ forces.
Nothing of all this concerns the pathetic apostates of the Ottoman
empires who, believing in the diverse lies of the colonial
representatives, collaborated with the English and the French
only to see a disaster befalling on their countries that remained
underdeveloped, anachronistic and dysfunctional. The various Arabic
speaking groups who, after having been enticed by the English and the
French, voluntarily worked with them, represent servility, docility
and slavery better than any other ethnic group on earth. They were
expecting to become rulers in a united ´Arabic´ kingdom, and they
were divided to more 10 (ten) countries (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine,
Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, Emirates, Oman,
Bahrain)! But this was not what the English were promising in 1915
to these imbecile Arabic speaking groups in order to convince them to
desert the national army of their country, the Ottoman Empire, and help
them bring down the last political instance of the Islamic world. .....
None of all these besotted, ignorant and lewd pseudo-elites of
Damascus, Baghdad, Jerusalem, Mecca, and Cairo would have expected in
the 1910´s the developments that followed the end of WW I. They were
´sure´ that the English and the French would help them substitute
their bogus-state to the Ottoman Empire that they had hated due
to the evil propaganda of the colonials, which they were gullible,
obtuse and brainless enough to accept.
The pro-Western (minority) and the Islamist (majority) elites of the
so-called Arabic speaking countries, who have uninterruptedly served
the colonial powers as the world´s most obedient and passive slaves,
having engaged in typically evil duplicity (promising one thing to
their colonial masters and saying precisely the opposite to their
rude, uncivil and barbaric masses), denounce Kemal Ataturk´s policies
that displeased the colonial powers because they were the means of
a backward country´s rise to power and modernity.
In fact, Kemal Ataturk, contrarily to Lenin, Mao and others, did
not intend to (and did not) implement a certain system; although we
have the tendency to view his policies now en bloc and thus consider
them as a system, they were not perceived like that in the 1920s and
the 1930s. His policies were not a mere imitation, a blind copy or a
dogmatic transplantation of another system. There was a great role
for the state in the restructuring of the economy, but there were
private companies as well. There was a change of writing system far
more radical than the small changes introduced by Lenin in the Russian
alphabet. Everything was decided upon and introduced as policy in order
to enable the local populations smoothly cope with Western European and
Northern American competition in terms of science, technology, economy,
efficient governance, and social infrastructure. It was an effort of
modernization based on a pragmatic assessment of the then world.
Kemal Ataturk´s policies were not dictated by the colonial powers,
and this is very easy to reconfirm after crosschecking the subject
at the global level; nowhere did France and England suggest to
local governments to implement policies introduced in Turkey by
Kemal Ataturk.
At this point one has to denounce once forever the ridiculous myth
of Arabic countries´ socialism; there has never been such a thing
as Arab socialism. The socialists, the Nasserists and the Baathists
did not dare implement even 10% of Kemal Ataturk´s reforms. No Latin
writing, and no Sunday as weekend! And certainly, none of them dared
prohibit the Islamic veil from the public places or to eliminate the
religious schools that have always been the worst impediment in the
path of modern countries for progress.
The policies of Kemal Ataturk could not possibly and actually did
not please the colonial powers because they offer to any country
whereby they are to be eventually implemented the tools to achieve
competition with the leading European countries. On the contrary, the
colonial countries consider that their own interests are guaranteed
when the targeted countries simply imitate Western policies, fail to
understand the reasons and the purposes behind these policies, and are
thus engulfed in internal inconclusive conflicts that are eternalized.
We have a very clear indication of the terrible clash occurred between
Kemal Ataturk and the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge which is the guiding
force of the colonial regimes of France and England; to eliminate
its subversive penetration, which was targeting him directly, Kemal
Ataturk, as a true and staunch Freemason, decided the elimination
of the institutions depending on the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge,
and the cancellation of their evil works.
However, one must have a clear idea of what Kemal Ataturk and his
military - political establishment have been and what they have
not. The latter is also of importance as it still influences and
determines today´s Turkey, its political decision making process,
and its intellectual - academic debates.
Kemal Ataturk was not an atheist firmly engaged in favour of
evolutionism and materialism; to depict him in this way bears witness
to either ignorance or conspiracy. The Turkish Republic was never
an anti-Islamic country determined to harm Islam; on the contrary,
it was a state whereby nothing could be done in order to defame
Islam. Contrarily to Kemal Ataturk´s state, the Islamic Republic of
Iran constitutes a reason for Islam´s defamation, denigration and
vilification. Similarly with Saudi Arabia, which is the state that
defamed Islam most throughout the World History, Iran and every fanatic
Islamist establishment misrepresent Islam and damage its chances of
being correctly, fairly and accurately perceived by people allover
the world.
Ever Lurking Colonial Powers: from Turkey´s Adhesion to NATO to
Erdogan´s High Treason
As I already said in the previous article, Turkey´s adhesion to NATO
in the early 50s was partly due to the pro-American policy of the
heretic premier Adnan Menderes, who had attended the American College
for Secondary Education at Izmir in the 1910s, and pursued a steady
anti-Ataturk policy that rightfully ended with his execution, following
a military coup against his demagogic and catastrophic government.
Turkey´s participation in the NATO was certainly a form of partly
colonization that did not affect directly the Turkish society. It
mainly consisted in diffusion of falsehood (from the part of the top
US, English and French military) among the top Turkish military, mainly
the 3-star and 4-star generals. The falsehood had preponderantly to do
with general geo-strategic considerations and perception of threats; by
exaggerating the Soviet threat, the NATO colonials obtained Turkey´s
participation in the Cold War.
Of course, the overall phenomenon involved diverse methods such as
excessive bribery, multifaceted deception, secretive initiation
to American and English Freemasonic institutions that are all
controlled by the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge, premeditated support
of these generals in their promotion. This occurred in parallel
with the very traditional method which provided for the selection
of several Turkish students abroad for initiation and membership
in the aforementioned institutions whereby every member is a real
hostage; this is so because the initiation and the membership involve
grave psychological constraints, psychic shocks, severe threats, and
blackmail. The later social and professional promotion of the diverse
members in the administration machine, the academia, the mass media,
the politics, the diplomacy and the economy offers the means of power
control to the evil and subversive organization that identifies its
interests with those of England and France. As hierarchy is all that
matters therein, the real targets are unknown to most of the members,
but the ordered action is compulsory; consequently, the people held
captive in this organization can prove to be greatly harmful to
their own country - at their unbeknownst. In fact, every concept of
national independence, personal, social and political freedom, and
democracy is eliminated when this organization is allowed or manages
to be fully functional. This is the reason Kemal Ataturk, well aware
of their perversity, prohibited their further function in the 1930s.
Several coups in Turkey were precisely due to the desire of the
military to put under control or to limit the activity of this sort
of unconscious traitors. Certainly Turkey is only one example in this
regard; similar phenomena occurred in various countries.
One can describe the entire system as an effort to totally control and
damage other countries through a veil of predefined (pre-arranged)
networks that function as catalysts. It goes without saying that
more isolated a country is greater is the difficulty of the Apostate
Freemasonic Lodge to penetrate it. That´s why the trickery of the
liberal economy was invented in order to mainly help the malicious
institution further penetrate whereby penetration was difficult or
impossible in the past.
With respect to Turkey, the first stage of colonialism involved mainly
a few members, ceaseless contacts, extensive selection of data, and
thorough analysis of the system´s functionality. The data would be
later used, when the correct timing would be identified. The first
stage lasted no less than 50 years, 1952 - 2003.
The most important effect of this stage of colonialism was the high
acquaintance with the details of political, military and economic
life in Turkey, and the progressively acquired control of the various
military projects, functions, plans, and practices. This was achieved
through continuous interaction with the selected 3-star and 4-star
generals, their Freemasonic initiation, and the subsequent long
cooperation.
During this period, while NATO served the colonial purposes as
described, France and England never got rid of their hereditary
Anti-Turkish racism and hysteria. Whenever the Cold War was not
undergoing a severe crisis, the two European colonial powers pursued
their plans either triggering Turkish - Greek conflicts (tragic events
at Istanbul in 1955) or provoking inter-community misunderstandings
in Cyprus (through the 50s and the 60s until 1974).
In addition, they laid the foundations of their approach to what
they diffused as ´Kurdish problem´ which is another typical fallacy
because under the umbrella - name ´Kurds´ the Anglo-French colonial
academia and diplomats compressed more than 10 different nations. The
tactics is very old and widely implemented; a state whereby ten
different nations are compressed and oppressed can never undergo proper
and pertinent nation - building, and this situation triggers in turn
internal conflict and underdevelopment. It is mainly in the 60s and
the 70s that Anglo-French academia started speaking of ´Kurds´
(and meaning - erroneously - one nation) analytically.
Similarly, the Armenian Diaspora was given the order to continue the
anti-Turkish propaganda for the terrible massacres occurred in 1915 -
1916 in the Northeastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire because the
Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, incited by the French and
the Russians, had decided to betray their own country for the sake of
the enemy. Instead of demanding recognition of an inexistent genocide,
the Armenians of the Diaspora should present to Turkey their apologies
for having shamelessly betrayed their own country,
At the same time, the reactionary elements of the Modern Islamic
theology and the traditionalist minority managed to survive and to
form some connections with Islamic extremists in countries like Saudi
Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan. This was anticipated by the colonial
powers, and offered them an additional point of pressure over Turkey.
The second stage of Turkey´s colonization started with the rise of the
AKP party in 2003. It was meant to complete the earlier preparation,
and fulfill Turkey´s colonization. The sophisticated plan provided
for the following parts:
1. The political rise of an extremist Islamist party camouflaged up
to great extent
2. The parallel socioeconomic rise of provincial businessmen ready
to form the backbone of the new establishment
3. An active engagement of Turkey in negotiations with the European
Union which would bring forth the pretext for democratization
4. The orchestrated pressure by EU institutions and the Islamist
party for limitations in the role of the military in Turkey
5. The gradual diffusion and imposition of Islamist ideas and forms
of thought among the Turkish society
6. The recognition of the myth "Kurds" by the Turkish government
7. The recognition of the myth "Armenian Genocide" by the Turkish
government
8. The elimination of Turkish ambitions in Caucasus and Central Asia
9. The use of Turkish diplomacy in order to promote several colonial
peace plans in the Middle East
10. Advanced liberalization and consequently increased economic
control of Turkey
11. The final attack against the military establishment through the
creation and meticulous guidance of a huge scandal directed against
the military which would involve spectacular but untrue discoveries
in order to impress the local people, and defame the military.
12. Adoption of all the terms and dogmas of Islamic Modernism
13. Acceptance of all the terms of the colonial dogmas, Orientalism,
Pan-Arabism, and Islamism, and
14. The final abolition of Kemal Ataturk´s Turkey and the subsequent
adaptation of the country into a religious, barbaric and unilateral
system - similar with that of the Ayatullahs of Iran or the religious
extremism and darkness of Saudi Arabia.
In a forthcoming article, I will analyze the character of today´s
Turkey which is being altered and turned into that of a fully
colonized country.
Note
Picture: Allenby enters Jerusalem; a critical development of the WW
I in the Middle East. Print Share Email Your Name
Recipient's Name
Recipient's Email Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis Orientalist,
Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 52, is the author
of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia
entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes
more than 15, modern and ancient, languages. He refuted Greek
nationalism, supported Martin Bernal´s Black Athena, and rejected the
Greco-Romano-centric version of History. He pleaded for the European
History by J. B. Duroselle, and defended the rights of the Turkish,
Pomak, Macedonian, Vlachian, Arvanitic, Latin Catholic, and Jewish
minorities of Greece.
Born Christian Orthodox, he adhered to Islam when 36, devoted to
ideas of Muhyieldin Ibn al Arabi. Greek citizen of Turkish origin,
Prof. Megalommatis studied and/or worked in Turkey, Greece, France,
England, Belgium, Germany, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and
Russia, and carried out research trips throughout the Middle East,
Northeastern Africa and Central Asia. His career extended from Research
& Education, Journalism, Publications, Photography, and Translation
to Website Development, Human Rights Advocacy, Marketing, Sales &
Brokerage. He traveled in more than 80 countries in 5 continents.
He defends the Human and Civil Rights of Yazidis, Aramaeans, Turkmen,
Oromos, Ogadenis, Sidamas, Berbers, Afars, Anuak, Furis (Darfur),
Bejas, Balochs, Tibetans, and their Right to National Independence,
demands international recognition for Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and Transnistria, calls for
National Unity in Somalia, and denounces Islamic Terrorism.
Freedom and National Independence for Catalonia, Scotland, Corsica,
Euskadi (Bask Land), and (illegally French) Polynesia!
Author's Profile Author's Other Articles Author's RSS Feed
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
American Chronicle
http://www.americanchronicle.com/article s/view/92835
March 2 2009
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis March 01, 2009
In a previous article entitled ´The Colonization of Turkey´
(http://www.buzzle.com/articles /the-colonization-of-turkey.html),
I drew a historical diagram of Iran, China, Japan, and Turkey, the
only Asiatic countries that have not been colonized, at least in the
way the proper meaning of the word suggests (military occupation and
foreign administration ruling the colonized country). It is clear that
through the aforementioned I consider Russia as a basically European
country, as its historical center lies exclusively on European soil,
in the west of the Ural mountains.
Indirect Colonization and Socio-political Eclecticism
Yet, if these four Asiatic countries have not been colonized stricto
sensu, they have been indirectly colonized at all levels, economic,
political, educational, cultural and geopolitical. Here, I want
to clarify that I make a very clear distinction between voluntary
acceptance of theories, systems, ideas, practices, and policies
implemented by other countries and indirect colonialism. I would
rather identify the former as Socio-political Eclecticism.
Indirect colonialism means, on the contrary, blind acceptance of
another country´s systems, ideas, practices, and policies without a
chance for the accepting country (which is thus indirectly colonized)
to preserve its authenticity, historical integrity, cultural and
national independence. Indirect colonialism has mostly to do with
systems composed in another country by theoreticians, philosophers,
intellectuals and academia totally unrelated to the country that
becomes indirectly colonized by accepting them. It may also involve
the blind acceptance of a behavioural system.
The examples of Communist China and post-WW II Japan are quite
indicative; particularly, the Cultural Revolution was an extreme
phenomenon of de-Sinization. To accept and implement a typically
Euro-centric system of worldview (Marxism - Leninism), the Communist
Party of China tried systematically to irrevocably delete the essence
of 5000 years of Chinese Civilization, Integrity, Authenticity and
Identity. Japan´s modern society, despite the preservation of number
of traditions, doesn´t reflect what Japan has been over the past 500
years. The same can even be said for post-WW II Germany, but this is
not the subject of the present article.
Today´s Islam and Islamism: Indirect Colonization
Indirect colonization can also take the form of acceptance of a
theoretical simulacrum of a system that the indirectly colonized
country and people consider as surely their own. This is precisely
the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran; in fact, modern Islamism is
not a system emanating out of the Cultural and Political Heritage of
Islam. It is an Orientalist sub-system created in Western European
(read mainly French and English) academic and Freemasonic ateliers
that superimposes the religious element over the political only
to accommodate the colonial powers´ anti-Islamic, anti-Ottoman,
and anti-Iranian interests. As such, it has been projected on
Muslim countries in a sophisticated way only to engulf them in vain
queries, unrealistic purposes, catastrophic policies and permanent
underdevelopment.
The focus of the Islamism has certainly been the area of the so-called
Arabic speaking countries, a vast part of the Ottoman Empire that was
gradually cut off and victimized though the earlier projection of the
equally colonial and absolutely fake dogma of (Pan-)Arabism. None
of these countries has ever been Arabic, except Hedjaz, namely the
Western part of today´s Saudi Arabia. Not a single inhabitant of
the aforementioned realm (except the region of Hedjaz) is Arab,
and the mere phenomenon of linguistic arabization did not change in
anything the Aramaean, Yemenite, Coptic, Nubian, Kushitic and Berberic
identities of the greatly different (from one another) nations who have
been targeted by the colonial powers, detached from their own country
(i. e. the Ottoman Empire), and monstrously deformed following the
criminal projection of the fabricated, fake Arabic identity on them.
Yet, Islamism was viciously supported by the colonial countries and
diffused by them beyond the limited area of the so-called Arabic
speaking countries. In the late 1970s, Iran fell victim of these
colonial endeavours. Certainly, Ayatullah Khomeini and his team,
and the various administrations of the 30-year regime could never
imagine that they are real tools of the colonial powers that apparently
constitute their enemies.
However, contrarily to the Safevid Persian imperial policies, the
Islamic Republic does not reflect any real political opposition to
the colonial powers. The official Iranian claim for Vilayat-e Faqih
is not a political system, and does not provide for any opposition to
Anglo-French and American post-colonialism. The Iranian theoretical
background of the Islamic Republic is a religious system that, although
Shia, reflects Sunni schools of jurisprudence and philosophy in many
aspects. But it consists in a superimposition of the religious on the
political, and this did not occur at all at the Safevid or earlier
times. In fact, this fact relates to our modern times, and to the
colonial projections on the Islamic countries.
>From the times of the earlier Islamic dynasties down to the Ottoman and
Safevid times, the political ideology of the Caliphate and the other
imperial Islamic establishments certainly reflected Islamic values
but was not subordinated to the religion. It was the continuation
of earlier imperial political ideologies, the Sassanid Iranian, the
Eastern Roman, the Arsacid Parthian, the Imperial Roman, the Seleucid
Syrian, the Macedonian, the Achaemenid Persian, the Babylonian,
the Assyrian, and the Akkadian systems.
As imperial systems, not as religions, the Ottoman Empire, Safevid
Iran, and Mogul India enabled the world of Islam to prevail over
the rest of the world politically, economically, intellectually,
culturally, educationally, academically, and artistically. In this
case, the ´rest of the world´ was in fact limited to two realms:
Northwestern Europe and China.
The European colonial attack against these imperial systems
(something that is not the subject of the present article) involved
many methods, but the most critical one was the projection of the
Freemasonry-invented and colonially diffused Islamism, a system which
- so conveniently for the colonial powers and so pathetically for
all Muslims - superimposed the religious over the political element
within the query for an all-Islamic political entity.
This Islamic pseudo-state, in which the religious element is
superimposed over the political element, if we hypothesized that it
existed, it would be the top colonial achievement throughout the
Islamic world because it would consist in a non-political entity
(a fake state - as any state without a proper political ideology is
a fake) guided by an extreme deformation of Islam that is believed
as Islam by today´s Muslims, and even worse, this deformation of
Islam would play the role of the political ideology in that fake state.
When I speak of deformation of Islam, I mean that to the earlier
stages of prevalence of the Hanbalist school and the system of
Ibn Taimiya have been added the most recent layers of Wahhabism
and Islamic Modernism (Jemal al Din Afghani and Mohamed Abduh),
which bear a strong mark of unscreened colonial influence. As long
as today´s Islamic sheikhs, muftis, theoreticians, theologians,
and intellectuals do not reject the aforementioned layers, they
will fail to reach Islamic authenticity at either the political -
ideological or the philosophical - theological level. Accordingly,
what they call ´religion´ is totally irrelevant and illusory. But
this is again not the main subject of this article.
I expanded much on the issue of Islamism as indirect colonization,
because what was achieved by the colonial powers in Iran in 1979 is
attempted against Turkey with a 30-year delay.
Kemal Ataturk and Modern Turkey: Colonial or Anti-Colonial?
As I said earlier, a voluntary acceptance of theories, systems,
ideas, practices, and policies implemented by other countries is not
indirect colonialism. I used the term "Socio-political Eclecticism"
to describe it. This was typical of Kemal Ataturk and did characterize
the innovations he introduced in Turkey. I would not refer to the
subject but I do so only to refute Islamist literature against the
founder of Modern Turkey. This literature is abundant in Arabic
and Farsi but it progressively finds however its way to the global
mass media in several international languages due to the phenomenon
of labor immigration. In fact, Arabic speaking countries´ elites,
plunged in severe analphabetism and extreme obscurantism, have felt
for many long decades a grave complex of inferiority because Turkey
was not colonized, whereas their territories were colonized by the
English, the French, the Italians, and more recently the Americans.
The following trait is an additional testimony to the colonial nature
of the Arabic speaking countries; both parts of their regimes, the
local modernizers who want to pathetically imitate Europe and America
(and they do so without understanding the logic and the reason behind
every behavioural or theoretical particularity of the Westerners) and
the Islamists who idiotically believe in the pillars of the Islamic
Modernism and even more inanely desire the rise of an Islamic state
(deprived of political ideology and with their deformed Islam playing
the role of political ideology), hate Kemal Ataturk, revile Turkey´s
achievements (that are all due to his policies), and try to defame
them as a form of colonialism - called Turkey´s westernization.
Rejection of colonialism is not a theoretical endeavour; it is mainly
a political act. It denotes denial of the colonial powers, involving
fight and war against them, lack of contact with them, opposition to
their plans, dismantlement of their deeds and destruction of their
interests at the local level. Even more importantly, rejection of
colonialism means absolute refutation of all colonial proposals;
in fact, national sovereignty implies automatic rejection of
cooperation with colonial powers´ representatives (military, economic,
administrative, academic, spiritual, etc.) and decisive punishment
of all those who betraying their nation, for their own economic sake,
collaborate in any form with the colonial powers´ forces.
Nothing of all this concerns the pathetic apostates of the Ottoman
empires who, believing in the diverse lies of the colonial
representatives, collaborated with the English and the French
only to see a disaster befalling on their countries that remained
underdeveloped, anachronistic and dysfunctional. The various Arabic
speaking groups who, after having been enticed by the English and the
French, voluntarily worked with them, represent servility, docility
and slavery better than any other ethnic group on earth. They were
expecting to become rulers in a united ´Arabic´ kingdom, and they
were divided to more 10 (ten) countries (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine,
Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, Emirates, Oman,
Bahrain)! But this was not what the English were promising in 1915
to these imbecile Arabic speaking groups in order to convince them to
desert the national army of their country, the Ottoman Empire, and help
them bring down the last political instance of the Islamic world. .....
None of all these besotted, ignorant and lewd pseudo-elites of
Damascus, Baghdad, Jerusalem, Mecca, and Cairo would have expected in
the 1910´s the developments that followed the end of WW I. They were
´sure´ that the English and the French would help them substitute
their bogus-state to the Ottoman Empire that they had hated due
to the evil propaganda of the colonials, which they were gullible,
obtuse and brainless enough to accept.
The pro-Western (minority) and the Islamist (majority) elites of the
so-called Arabic speaking countries, who have uninterruptedly served
the colonial powers as the world´s most obedient and passive slaves,
having engaged in typically evil duplicity (promising one thing to
their colonial masters and saying precisely the opposite to their
rude, uncivil and barbaric masses), denounce Kemal Ataturk´s policies
that displeased the colonial powers because they were the means of
a backward country´s rise to power and modernity.
In fact, Kemal Ataturk, contrarily to Lenin, Mao and others, did
not intend to (and did not) implement a certain system; although we
have the tendency to view his policies now en bloc and thus consider
them as a system, they were not perceived like that in the 1920s and
the 1930s. His policies were not a mere imitation, a blind copy or a
dogmatic transplantation of another system. There was a great role
for the state in the restructuring of the economy, but there were
private companies as well. There was a change of writing system far
more radical than the small changes introduced by Lenin in the Russian
alphabet. Everything was decided upon and introduced as policy in order
to enable the local populations smoothly cope with Western European and
Northern American competition in terms of science, technology, economy,
efficient governance, and social infrastructure. It was an effort of
modernization based on a pragmatic assessment of the then world.
Kemal Ataturk´s policies were not dictated by the colonial powers,
and this is very easy to reconfirm after crosschecking the subject
at the global level; nowhere did France and England suggest to
local governments to implement policies introduced in Turkey by
Kemal Ataturk.
At this point one has to denounce once forever the ridiculous myth
of Arabic countries´ socialism; there has never been such a thing
as Arab socialism. The socialists, the Nasserists and the Baathists
did not dare implement even 10% of Kemal Ataturk´s reforms. No Latin
writing, and no Sunday as weekend! And certainly, none of them dared
prohibit the Islamic veil from the public places or to eliminate the
religious schools that have always been the worst impediment in the
path of modern countries for progress.
The policies of Kemal Ataturk could not possibly and actually did
not please the colonial powers because they offer to any country
whereby they are to be eventually implemented the tools to achieve
competition with the leading European countries. On the contrary, the
colonial countries consider that their own interests are guaranteed
when the targeted countries simply imitate Western policies, fail to
understand the reasons and the purposes behind these policies, and are
thus engulfed in internal inconclusive conflicts that are eternalized.
We have a very clear indication of the terrible clash occurred between
Kemal Ataturk and the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge which is the guiding
force of the colonial regimes of France and England; to eliminate
its subversive penetration, which was targeting him directly, Kemal
Ataturk, as a true and staunch Freemason, decided the elimination
of the institutions depending on the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge,
and the cancellation of their evil works.
However, one must have a clear idea of what Kemal Ataturk and his
military - political establishment have been and what they have
not. The latter is also of importance as it still influences and
determines today´s Turkey, its political decision making process,
and its intellectual - academic debates.
Kemal Ataturk was not an atheist firmly engaged in favour of
evolutionism and materialism; to depict him in this way bears witness
to either ignorance or conspiracy. The Turkish Republic was never
an anti-Islamic country determined to harm Islam; on the contrary,
it was a state whereby nothing could be done in order to defame
Islam. Contrarily to Kemal Ataturk´s state, the Islamic Republic of
Iran constitutes a reason for Islam´s defamation, denigration and
vilification. Similarly with Saudi Arabia, which is the state that
defamed Islam most throughout the World History, Iran and every fanatic
Islamist establishment misrepresent Islam and damage its chances of
being correctly, fairly and accurately perceived by people allover
the world.
Ever Lurking Colonial Powers: from Turkey´s Adhesion to NATO to
Erdogan´s High Treason
As I already said in the previous article, Turkey´s adhesion to NATO
in the early 50s was partly due to the pro-American policy of the
heretic premier Adnan Menderes, who had attended the American College
for Secondary Education at Izmir in the 1910s, and pursued a steady
anti-Ataturk policy that rightfully ended with his execution, following
a military coup against his demagogic and catastrophic government.
Turkey´s participation in the NATO was certainly a form of partly
colonization that did not affect directly the Turkish society. It
mainly consisted in diffusion of falsehood (from the part of the top
US, English and French military) among the top Turkish military, mainly
the 3-star and 4-star generals. The falsehood had preponderantly to do
with general geo-strategic considerations and perception of threats; by
exaggerating the Soviet threat, the NATO colonials obtained Turkey´s
participation in the Cold War.
Of course, the overall phenomenon involved diverse methods such as
excessive bribery, multifaceted deception, secretive initiation
to American and English Freemasonic institutions that are all
controlled by the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge, premeditated support
of these generals in their promotion. This occurred in parallel
with the very traditional method which provided for the selection
of several Turkish students abroad for initiation and membership
in the aforementioned institutions whereby every member is a real
hostage; this is so because the initiation and the membership involve
grave psychological constraints, psychic shocks, severe threats, and
blackmail. The later social and professional promotion of the diverse
members in the administration machine, the academia, the mass media,
the politics, the diplomacy and the economy offers the means of power
control to the evil and subversive organization that identifies its
interests with those of England and France. As hierarchy is all that
matters therein, the real targets are unknown to most of the members,
but the ordered action is compulsory; consequently, the people held
captive in this organization can prove to be greatly harmful to
their own country - at their unbeknownst. In fact, every concept of
national independence, personal, social and political freedom, and
democracy is eliminated when this organization is allowed or manages
to be fully functional. This is the reason Kemal Ataturk, well aware
of their perversity, prohibited their further function in the 1930s.
Several coups in Turkey were precisely due to the desire of the
military to put under control or to limit the activity of this sort
of unconscious traitors. Certainly Turkey is only one example in this
regard; similar phenomena occurred in various countries.
One can describe the entire system as an effort to totally control and
damage other countries through a veil of predefined (pre-arranged)
networks that function as catalysts. It goes without saying that
more isolated a country is greater is the difficulty of the Apostate
Freemasonic Lodge to penetrate it. That´s why the trickery of the
liberal economy was invented in order to mainly help the malicious
institution further penetrate whereby penetration was difficult or
impossible in the past.
With respect to Turkey, the first stage of colonialism involved mainly
a few members, ceaseless contacts, extensive selection of data, and
thorough analysis of the system´s functionality. The data would be
later used, when the correct timing would be identified. The first
stage lasted no less than 50 years, 1952 - 2003.
The most important effect of this stage of colonialism was the high
acquaintance with the details of political, military and economic
life in Turkey, and the progressively acquired control of the various
military projects, functions, plans, and practices. This was achieved
through continuous interaction with the selected 3-star and 4-star
generals, their Freemasonic initiation, and the subsequent long
cooperation.
During this period, while NATO served the colonial purposes as
described, France and England never got rid of their hereditary
Anti-Turkish racism and hysteria. Whenever the Cold War was not
undergoing a severe crisis, the two European colonial powers pursued
their plans either triggering Turkish - Greek conflicts (tragic events
at Istanbul in 1955) or provoking inter-community misunderstandings
in Cyprus (through the 50s and the 60s until 1974).
In addition, they laid the foundations of their approach to what
they diffused as ´Kurdish problem´ which is another typical fallacy
because under the umbrella - name ´Kurds´ the Anglo-French colonial
academia and diplomats compressed more than 10 different nations. The
tactics is very old and widely implemented; a state whereby ten
different nations are compressed and oppressed can never undergo proper
and pertinent nation - building, and this situation triggers in turn
internal conflict and underdevelopment. It is mainly in the 60s and
the 70s that Anglo-French academia started speaking of ´Kurds´
(and meaning - erroneously - one nation) analytically.
Similarly, the Armenian Diaspora was given the order to continue the
anti-Turkish propaganda for the terrible massacres occurred in 1915 -
1916 in the Northeastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire because the
Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, incited by the French and
the Russians, had decided to betray their own country for the sake of
the enemy. Instead of demanding recognition of an inexistent genocide,
the Armenians of the Diaspora should present to Turkey their apologies
for having shamelessly betrayed their own country,
At the same time, the reactionary elements of the Modern Islamic
theology and the traditionalist minority managed to survive and to
form some connections with Islamic extremists in countries like Saudi
Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan. This was anticipated by the colonial
powers, and offered them an additional point of pressure over Turkey.
The second stage of Turkey´s colonization started with the rise of the
AKP party in 2003. It was meant to complete the earlier preparation,
and fulfill Turkey´s colonization. The sophisticated plan provided
for the following parts:
1. The political rise of an extremist Islamist party camouflaged up
to great extent
2. The parallel socioeconomic rise of provincial businessmen ready
to form the backbone of the new establishment
3. An active engagement of Turkey in negotiations with the European
Union which would bring forth the pretext for democratization
4. The orchestrated pressure by EU institutions and the Islamist
party for limitations in the role of the military in Turkey
5. The gradual diffusion and imposition of Islamist ideas and forms
of thought among the Turkish society
6. The recognition of the myth "Kurds" by the Turkish government
7. The recognition of the myth "Armenian Genocide" by the Turkish
government
8. The elimination of Turkish ambitions in Caucasus and Central Asia
9. The use of Turkish diplomacy in order to promote several colonial
peace plans in the Middle East
10. Advanced liberalization and consequently increased economic
control of Turkey
11. The final attack against the military establishment through the
creation and meticulous guidance of a huge scandal directed against
the military which would involve spectacular but untrue discoveries
in order to impress the local people, and defame the military.
12. Adoption of all the terms and dogmas of Islamic Modernism
13. Acceptance of all the terms of the colonial dogmas, Orientalism,
Pan-Arabism, and Islamism, and
14. The final abolition of Kemal Ataturk´s Turkey and the subsequent
adaptation of the country into a religious, barbaric and unilateral
system - similar with that of the Ayatullahs of Iran or the religious
extremism and darkness of Saudi Arabia.
In a forthcoming article, I will analyze the character of today´s
Turkey which is being altered and turned into that of a fully
colonized country.
Note
Picture: Allenby enters Jerusalem; a critical development of the WW
I in the Middle East. Print Share Email Your Name
Recipient's Name
Recipient's Email Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis Orientalist,
Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 52, is the author
of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia
entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes
more than 15, modern and ancient, languages. He refuted Greek
nationalism, supported Martin Bernal´s Black Athena, and rejected the
Greco-Romano-centric version of History. He pleaded for the European
History by J. B. Duroselle, and defended the rights of the Turkish,
Pomak, Macedonian, Vlachian, Arvanitic, Latin Catholic, and Jewish
minorities of Greece.
Born Christian Orthodox, he adhered to Islam when 36, devoted to
ideas of Muhyieldin Ibn al Arabi. Greek citizen of Turkish origin,
Prof. Megalommatis studied and/or worked in Turkey, Greece, France,
England, Belgium, Germany, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and
Russia, and carried out research trips throughout the Middle East,
Northeastern Africa and Central Asia. His career extended from Research
& Education, Journalism, Publications, Photography, and Translation
to Website Development, Human Rights Advocacy, Marketing, Sales &
Brokerage. He traveled in more than 80 countries in 5 continents.
He defends the Human and Civil Rights of Yazidis, Aramaeans, Turkmen,
Oromos, Ogadenis, Sidamas, Berbers, Afars, Anuak, Furis (Darfur),
Bejas, Balochs, Tibetans, and their Right to National Independence,
demands international recognition for Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and Transnistria, calls for
National Unity in Somalia, and denounces Islamic Terrorism.
Freedom and National Independence for Catalonia, Scotland, Corsica,
Euskadi (Bask Land), and (illegally French) Polynesia!
Author's Profile Author's Other Articles Author's RSS Feed
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress