Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 7:47 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nationalism and secularism
#51
RE: Nationalism and secularism
(April 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: [Image: De_Neuville_-_The_Huns_at_the_Battle_of_Chalons.jpg]
The Hunnic ancestors of the Magyars, at the battle of Chalons. The artist depicts a host of crows following our lines, to feast upon the enemies we have cut down as we ravaged Europe for the first time.
After the Huns, our advance was unstoppable.

[Image: 502px-Nagasakibomb.jpg]

After this ominous cloud rose over the shattered remains of Nagasaki, our victory in WWII, the largest war mankind has ever fought, was assured. Tools, my friend...tools and brains, not blood, are what matter.
Reply
#52
RE: Nationalism and secularism
Flocks of feasting crows and raiding Europe would be more or less macabre than nuclear weapons? People killing each other is a shitty business, regardless of the tools used.

Your "noble" turkish warriors are interchangeable with the pilots of the Enola Gay in this regard. Both were monsters to those they attacked.

You've made it a habit to appeal to hypocrisy when speaking about your ancestors, or your plans for the future. Do you know why that doesn't hold water (beyond it being an absolutely shitty argument in and of itself regardless of the subject)? Because you're the only one making excuses in either case. Show of hands, who extolls the virtues of the great and noble pilots of Enola Gay? -not this guy- You know we've always had mixed feelings about this, even before the damned bomb was dropped. But I bet you figured we were all just sitting here frothing at the mouth to annihilate a city. Why do you imagine we decided to give it the go?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#53
RE: Nationalism and secularism
(April 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Flocks of feasting crows and raiding Europe would be more or less macabre than nuclear weapons? People killing each other is a shitty business, regardless of the tools used.

Your "noble" turkish warriors are interchangeable with the pilots of the Enola Gay in this regard. Both were monsters to those they attacked.

You've made it a habit to appeal to hypocrisy when speaking about your ancestors, or your plans for the future. Do you know why that doesn't hold water (beyond it being an absolutely shitty argument in and of itself regardless of the subject)? Because you're the only one making excuses in either case. Show of hands, who extolls the virtues of the great and noble pilots of Enola Gay? -not this guy- You know we've always had mixed feelings about this, even before the damned bomb was dropped. But I bet you figured we were all just sitting here frothing at the mouth to annihilate a city. Why do you imagine we decided to give it the go?

That was me that posted it. XD

I was comparing the destruction that Mehmet states that his ancestors wrought with hundreds of thousands of horsemen against the destruction the US wrought with two bombs, and ultimately the horror that both wrecked upon other humans and how similar they are, and yet how different, too. His "noble warriors" he talks up were aggressors who followed an ideal eerily similar to what he refers to with his talk of unity and reclaiming bloodlines. The nuclear bombs were done in a last-ditch effort to prevent a protracted and expensive war that was going to cost millions more lives to end otherwise. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible...but the alternative, while it may have been far less 'shocking,' would have, in the long term, been far more brutal.

The difference is that we ended a war we did not start. Mehmet's supposed "honorable warrior" ancestors started a war for their mere glory and legacy...as is what anyone who begins believing in an ideology of "legacies" and "glory" and "bloodlines" will inevitably do.
Reply
#54
RE: Nationalism and secularism
Mehm asked me to point out "untruths" in his posts. Yours gave me a great place to start.

Back to our bigot. Everytime you invoke you "Pure" blood and superior ethnicity I can't help but erupt into bouts of belly-laughter, so my "playing comedia" is perfectly understandable.




In case you just can't bear to read that, in case you would rather ignore it, the paper states in no uncertain terms, based upon Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA that this massive turkish migration and empire fairy tale you love so much simply does not seem to have occurred. That there is no pure "Turkic" current of blood in Turkey. This would explain the absolute lack of archaeological, historical, or linguistic evidence we would expect to find from such a thing. 13%, that would be the number that the researchers arrived at with regards to Anatolia specifically. The Huns you blather on about so boastfully are in a similar position. We have no reason to assume that they were some single, united ethnicity. We have every reason to assume that they were a convenient horde of disparate cultures and ethnicities that formed an alliance as quickly as they were able to break it (and this might explain why "The Mighty Huns" disappear less than a year after Atilla's death). A collection of different peoples all united under the banner of a charismatic leader. This "turkish identity", this "turkish blood" that you seem to feel is so superior to the rest of ours is that of migrants, and mixed ethnicities. The only thing that bound all of these people together was a "somewhat" common language. The turkic language became the lingua franca of the steppes in the same way that english is now the lingua franca of business (and the world). It's easy to see how this occurred. You wanted to be able to at least attempt to talk the little raiding band of mounted archers out of raping your daughter (clearly, by the study above..it didn't work). So, which 13% of Turkey (or anywhere else) would you like to claim by right of blood today? You know, the paper goes on, further stating that no link can be found between "turkish" peoples and their supposed origins all the way back to the steppes of Mongolia. Seems you folks have been fucking the locals with every step you took from wherever the hell you came from. Your blood is so damned mixed we can't even tell for sure anymore. All we have are folk stories and fairy tales of dubious quality.

Since we've handled the "pure" bit, lets move on to the "superior" bit. I haven't seen you point to anything beyond the Huns, Khanate, and Ottomans in support of this, so it would seem to me that you feel that military prowess (even if it is a thing of the past, currently melted away, is what gives ones ethnicity "superiority" over the others). Well, let me show you a couple of little maps.

[Image: 250px-The_British_Empire.png]

[Image: 250px-RomanEmpireTrajan117AD.png]

[Image: 250px-Umayyad750ADloc.png]

Each of these empires seems to have been at least as "great" as your own, and in the case of the Huns specifically, they actually had an empire whereas the Huns did not, they could never establish any sort of system of governance with which to rule (something Attilla is said to have been very disappointed with) They simply had a large swath of land where people were terrified of being shot in the back by a coward with a bow on a horse in the middle of a faceless horde (you see my ancestors fought like men, on foot, with short spears hooah!).

Each of these empires (in addition to being vast and powerful) contributed to the sciences and humanities in ways that anything even resembling a Turkish Empire has never been able to match. The greatest claim to fame from a turkish anything would be agriculture, which happened 10,00 years ago, and unfortunately, was driven by people who were not Turks, by your definition. Even the crumbling little fiefdoms of Europe which your migrant ancestors so easily overran (and let's not ignore the effect of their infighting on how easily this was accomplished, even if only temporarily) were able to contribute more to your very own existence than your ancestors were able to muster.

So, pure? Not a chance in hell. Superior? Doesn't look to be the case. How about different? By what metrics? Nucleotide diversity between human beings is .1%. Copy number, .05%. If you want to invoke blood genetics is all you're invoking. You are my brother, and it embarrases the shit out of me to know this. So tell me just a little bit more how my simpletons mind is incapable of grasping the "truth" of this massive list of bullshit you've pinned your pride and dreams on? Why is it that I seem to be so much more interested in our "blood" and our history? Interested enough, at least, to desire a factually accurate picture of who we are, where we came from, and how we got where we stand now. Why are you so satisfied with fairy tales? Rhetorical, they allow you to smugly state your personal superiority without having to actually accomplish or contribute anything, bigot. They allow you to draw an imaginary line between yourself and these "noble" warriors you so desperately wish that you could be, civilian. Is your present so dismal, your lot in life so meager, that you have to manufacture a fantasy to get you through your day to day? Are you so disenfranchised, so dissatisfied? Maybe you should work on that, rather than wasting your time with this sort of bullshit. You might just end up happier, and I can almost guarantee that you would come across as a whole hell of a lot less ignorant.

I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#55
RE: Nationalism and secularism
Quote:After this ominous cloud rose over the shattered remains of Nagasaki, our victory in WWII, the largest war mankind has ever fought, was assured. Tools, my friend...tools and brains, not blood, are what matter.
There you saw victory in this war of attrition, and brought christmas and baseball to Japan.
Tools and brains, those are things we got. But they are practically useless without the blood that fuels them. What good are the tools and brains of the American to us? What good are the tools and brains of the European? We need our own brains, and our own tools. This is why blood is important than anything else.
Quote:On victim and victor. I find this whole line of thought completely absurd.
So do I, friend. So do I. They both seem so opposite, right? But the victim complex is not present amongst us, friend. We do not lay the blame upon anyone. The current powers of the world are laying heavy upon us-so they do upon others. But this is not the problem, this is only a result that stems from the problem. We understand this. For this reason, there is no victim complex present within out consciousness. There is only pride and the drive to further our cause.
Quote: You would have us believe that you are mighty victors when speaking of your great nation,
But we are, friend. We are victors. Our race has seen the creation of countless empires, documented by history. Our domination was over a large mass of land throughout the Eurasian continent.
But now that time has passed. History will see to it that your time will be past, and you'll eventually retire to your own continent to let another power grow and expand it's influence. Hopefully, this won't be us. We know that imperialism serves no practical purpose. Our imperial grandfathers had seen it fit to spread our names wide into the far corners of the world-their purpose was to conquer the lands from sunrise to sunset. But even Chingiss Khan, blessed of the heavens, could not archive this goal. Who are we to claim that we could be greater victors than him? The time of victories that are measured in terms of the lands you have conquered, and the nations you hold in your grasp are over. These only bring more and more complications. Our victory will be in the freedom and prosperity of our own people. Something that is quite lacking for now. This is the reality. Not a statement that comes from victim complex.

Quote:but then constantly appeal to being helpless victims when asked why your great nation doesn't seem to be so great.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact that you're oppressed by the (current)powers of the world does not mean that you cannot fight back. We're doing just that. So did the people who founded this country(with Britain as the current power of that time). The reason they had prevailed is because this nation is great, we did not fight a war where we had grand moslem powers supporting our cause, while the Greeks who had fought their own war of independence were supplied by the Christian powers to the West and North. Still doesn't matter though.
Quote:Similarly, you would have us believe that your turkish blood somehow makes you powerful, but when asked why this power is mysteriously absent you claim that you have been oppressed.
It certainly is. The US is a fairly new power-we've fought off the oppression of the victorious allied powers of WWI. And we didn't have the resources we have now back then. If you knew the state of the Turkish army that was practically created from nothing more than an ill-armed village rabble, you'd understand that it is not the weapons that make a man great and superior. It is the blood. I've never lost my faith in the power that flows through our blood. More and more I read through the pages of history, my thoughts are strengthened.
But if you'd ask me, "how this power is mysteriously absent" I'd say, it's not.
It never was. If it were absent, it'd be absent during the aftermath of WWI. It is simply the case that we're becoming lazy. We stop believing in the power of that blood, demonstrated so many times throughout history.
It is this noble blood, that is, the Turk himself, which will free us from oppression. I've quoted the Orkhun inscriptions a few times already.
They say "Return to yourself Turk, if you do that, you shall be strong".
This concept, that is, returning to yourself is a realization. As the inscriptions tell, the Turk has not yet had it's awakening ever since the Göktürk empire. We have founded many many more empires, even those greater than the Göktürks. But we did not have the unity that was represented within the Göktürks. Now, we must return to ourselves, and form this unity both in mind, spirit, lands and resources. If we do this, the power of this blood shall visibly show itself.

What you don't understand is, you think I'm talking of a mythological concept here. That I mayhap speak like the Welsh, that King Arthur, who is of their blood, will come and save us, like Chingiss or Attila will rise from the ground to save us somehow. No. I'm talking of a practical concept that aids us if we know to use it.
Therefore you ask questions like this. Many people do. And they come back and tell me that they would like to know more about my ideology, the Turks, at least, to whom I talk to. Most are very confused, and I try to ease their confusion.
Quote: Do you often see a very powerful people oppressed?
Yes, the arabs. They are a powerful people, but they are fractured.
If they would unite into a single political, cultural and ethnic identity, instead of calling themselves "iraqis", "syrians", "saudis" or etc. they'd undoubtly be mighty. They are powerful, however they need to focus this power. It is somewhat akin to pressure. If you take a needle to prick your skin, it will. But you cannot prick yourself with a sheet of iron-you'd have to apply more and more strength. You need to minimize the area that is in contact.
This is the same with the power of nations. If stregth is divided, it's "visible" power is rather small.
Chingiss Khan once gave his son an arrow, and told him to break it. He easily broke it in half. Than he gave him a bundle of arrows, but these would not break in half as easily as a single one.
Turkey, a country, is but a single arrow. Other sovereign Turkic countries, all single arrows. We need to become a bundle to show the power that we all hold. We are powerful. But a power divided.
Quote:Who would oppress them, and wouldn't they require power at least equal (if not greater) to do so in the first place?
As I said. You would use a needle to prick the skin, friend. Similarly, you would not want to take on any power head on. Divide and conquer.
However, the division was not to be by our enemies. We had long ago divided our power into parts. And even those parts were enough for us to dominate large regions of the world for centuries. Now, we need to unite this power in a single concept, a single goal.

Quote:I think that all of these wildly disparate statements are rationalizations meant to reenforce your bigotry or excuse your master race for failing,
If we had failed, we would cease to exist, friend. We would be like the Maoris, or Native Americans for that part. This is failure. They have no way of recovering their sovereign existence any more even though they are still there.
There is nothing to rationalize. I rationalize things by looking at history, not by illusions. I did not come to these thoughts simply because someone told me about them, I read, and read, both writers of this school of thought, and of history. I do not need any more rationalizations than reality itself.
Quote:They need not be consistent with reality or themselves (and clearly they are not). This isn't exactly new in to the annals of ethnocentrism or bigotry, it's sort of the standard operating procedure.
But they are consistent with reality. I would not hold these ideas if they weren't. The ideals of the communists were in contrast with reality. Your ideals are in contrast with reality. You think that ethno-centrism is a bad thing, because you think that most of humanity views itself as brothers, and there are only a few racists there and here. The truth is, the world itself, is bent on ethnocentrism.
My ideals are in complete consistency with reality.

Quote:Watch out, I'm a filthy anti-facist...lock up your kids!
Well, you shout out the same slogans they do. My ears just don't have to hear them, that's it.
Quote:You mean to say that you don't have any organization that aligns itself along political lines roughly or exactly mirroring those you have expressed here?
We do, but they are not expressed in the form we Turkists would like them to be expressed. This is due to the negative connections that the liberal media is associating with us-likening us to nazis and italian fascists. They also diss the idea of Turan, and say the same stuff that you say here. Cosmopolitanist crap.
Some are more leftist, some are more rightist, but at the end, they all are reluctant to say the word "Turk". They're afraid of it.
But hopefully, these will be cast down as we take command. And we're now rising to important positions in the current nationalist party in Turkey. But my primary hope lies with Yusuf Halaçoğlu-our potential next president. He will be probably a great source of morale and an opponent of stupid liberal policies-vetoing one at a time.
Quote:Whew, that's a relief, because I was starting to think that a bunch of douchebags were actively plotting to start yet more shit over there.
"Start more shit"? We never started anything. We are not anarchists, we follow the law. Our weapons are our pens. It is only when the enemy resorts to violence, we resort to violence.
Quote:So it's just you, you're going to establish the Nation of Turan? In your backyard or your bunker?
It is the goal, which is Turan. Not a goal that is easily archived, but a goal that can be archived if we would work towards it. As a believer of this ideology, I spread this way of thought by means of fraternities and monthly student magazines. I once had a student fraternity of my own, before the school closed it down, and outlawed my magazine. I now joined a more mainstream nationalist organisation, and am active there.
A large puddle is only created by the constant trickle of water.
Besides, I guess you don't really expect me to be like you-inactive.

Quote: Either is fine by me. People have written a great many things, not all of it is worthy of faith or respect Mehm (regardless of whether or not a person is dead, or has been tortured), you don't respect the things that we antifa son's-of-bitches write, do you? Your faith would likely be strengthened by whatever I posted, that's the nature of faith. Do you ever read any of our posts here Mehm?
Well, I don't think that you'd respect the writings of Turkish nationalist thinkers, you're not Turkish, and you cannot understand Turkish. Neither the language, nor the people.
And I don't know what you antifa people really write down, I thought that you just go around and beat up "fascists".
And I do read your posts here. Might I ask how you lost your own faith if the nature of faith is to strengthen itself? My faith is not strengthened by itself, it's strengthened in the things I see in people. I see in you that you are naturally rather nervous around people like me-maybe it's due to the nature of your own existence. You cannot really grasp the concepts of what I tell you here. Therefore, you form your thoughts about them as you had about religion. You think they must be similar. No, they are not.
Quote:"My own people" are often incompetent, and yet we are a superpower and you are not.
You are a superpower? And we're not. I see that you too, have finally started to puff your chest, eh? True, we're not a superpower. Should this mean that we ought to submit to your rule? Our purpose is not to be a superpower in your imperialist sense. Our purpose is to live in peace with our own kin, in our own country. You can be thrice the superpower that you are right now, if you want to. I don't think that you can handle the responsibilities of a superpower for too long. No superpower of the past, including us, was able to handle it.
As I see, your own people are starting to wonder why you have been fighting seemingly pointless wars around the earth as though it was your responsibility in the first place. Your incompetent society is beginning to crumble. You're essentially destroying yourself from within-as it was the case with our empires, as it was the case with the British empire, as it was the case with Rome. Therefore, I don't really pay much attention to the fact that you're a current superpower. I don't fear ya.
Quote:Where does that leave the master-race?
See my post above. As the poet says; "Civilization(the west) is nothing more than a monster with but a single tooth". So are you. Our blood is still the same noble blood. And you are still the same, mixed-blood people, that do not have a purpose beyond living the selfish, materialistic lifestyles that your country expects you to live.
Quote:You would appeal to the tyranny of others to excuse the tyranny you wish to impose?
I would call something tyranny, if I knew it to be tyranny. And I think that a country that would oppose the willing unification of our peoples, would be nothing more than just that. I'm not saying that we should unite like back in the days-by force-but by will. So how is this anyhow a tyranny I wish to impose upon others? The only people who will receive no mercy are those who betray their people and country, and those who incite others to engage in such acts. Those will be swiftly punished.
Quote:Yes, I do think there are "un-truths" in your posts everytime you start blathering on about your blood and your race and you ethnicity and all of the superiority garbage.
Maybe that is due to the inferiority complex that you feel. You automatically assume them to be untruths. However, it's not really up to you to determine these. We do not prove ourselves before your eyes, but before the eyes of Turks only.
Quote:They begin when you type the first letter, they end when you hit send. Are we clear? Did you just call me a stupid-head?
Stupid you're not, as you can obviously type. But you're simple. A simple minded person, that I can tell you.
Quote: My full feedback on ethnic superiority bullshit -is- that it is bullshit.
I did not even try to prove our superiority to you, mind you.
For there simply is no need for that. I'm proving our superiority to ourselves. This is the thing you don't understand. My ideology is not directed towards you-why should I be bothered with proving our superiority to you?
Quote:You must make your own race into the master-race, I don't have to explain to you why you are not.
You cannot explain to me how we're not a superior race of people.
We as Turkists simply know this for a fact. Our founding fathers knew this aswell, and they have spoken of it on numerous occasions.
There isn't much to explain to you about this, as you probably won't accept anything I'm saying. No other race would admit the superiority of the other.
Quote:Your views weren't arrived at by reason, and so it is unsurprising that a reasonable answer would not cause you to review them.
They are. I know for a fact that my views are the only ones applicable to our people. There certainly is no other ideology that fits us. For the Turk rejects the foreign, even if he claims to believe in a foreign ideology, he knows in his heart that his efforts of propagation will fail.

We've seen these, friend. Turks here in Turkey have tried many different ideologies. Our brethren elsewhere have gotten a taste of communism, and we're just now seeing how destructive capitalism can be.
Turkism is the only native form of thought that we can be in full connection with.
Quote: Of course, a "reasonable answer" would mean exactly what to you from a non-turk?
It means as much as a reasonable answer from a Turk to you, a non-turk.
If I did see any reason in your answers, I'd point those out myself.
Quote:Are we even capable of such things? When have I ever claimed to be or even know of a savior Mehmet, bullshit, absolute bullshit, and I'm probably the worst person to try that particular kind of bullshit on.
Friend, I only know that saving our people and leading them to prosperity flows through our form of thought.
If you know or believe in a saviour of your own people, like Black Jesus who was very very well marketed throughout the world as such, I wouldn't really blame you-you obviously need such figures.
We only need a collective consciousness to archive our salvation.
Quote:I label facists facists when they self identify as such in their explanations of their principles.
Grand. But I don't self-identify as a fascist. Doing so would bring me in direct confliction with my ideals.
Quote: You blather on about how it isn't a turkish word so it doesn't apply. Get over yourself. I hold no such view, I hold that you, specifically those of you who align themselves with bigotry and ethnocentrism are not irrelevant, but ignorant and dangerous (both to yourselves and those around you).
We are dangerous to ourselves and those around us? The US is not a nation built on any ethnicity, and it generally is filled with people that cannot really afford to lay claim to such an ideology in the first place-they have given up their own people and went to some continent across the ocean for better material needs, and hold no nationalist agendas whatsoever.
Still, it is not us who are starting wars on a periodical basis, damaging not their own economy, putting the lives of his own citizens in danger, all the while, not only damaging those around himself, like south America, but countries and peoples far far far away from himself. In fact, those who hold internationalist forms of thought have been the greatest oppressors of others throughout history.
Will you deny this? We simply want to be left alone-to live in peace and prosperity with our own kin.
How is this somewhat dangerous, I wonder? Meaning, we will not mingle into the internal affairs of other countries, we will not colonize and strip other countries off of their resources, we will not economically enslave other people like empires of your magnitude have done throughout history. Hold whatever views you hold. History proves to me, that people who hold no ethno-national ideals are often the most indifferent and most ruthless of people, not only towards their own people, but towards others aswell.
Quote: History bears out my assessment of this situation very nicely. I oppose the tyranny you would impose upon others under the guise of "unification".
If you're going to tell me about Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, I'd tell you to hold. Would you really suggest that these countries have not been involved in the imperial agendas of their old, imperial self? How did it come that they have forcibly annexed countries bordering their lands?
Those two countries, were the same in essence to the British empire and the growing Soviet union of the time. Even though Hitler claimed to have loved his people, maybe he did, I may know know, he did not lead them to peace, but to war, he did not lead them to prosperity, but to poverty and destruction.

Now, the US, which is essentially doing the same, following the same imperialist agenda, staging false flag attacks against it's own targets, very much like the Nazis, who burned their own Reichstag, ventured far beyond their reach, to create the likeness of their once proud Holy Roman Empire, but failed. The US is trying to create something that is probably similar, but I do not know what, yet. Many conspiracy theories are surfacing, but I believe that the US has learned from the mistakes of the past, and is trying to economically emancipate other nations as to follow with various conditionalities and loan agreements.
I know you will deny these, but it really doesn't matter.
The fact is, the US displays the generic characteristics of an "empire", a multi-ethnic empire. It will crumble in the same way as others of it's kind did.
We on the other hand, build our country not on imperial agenda, not on near-mythological and made-up idelogies like the Nazis, nor on the notion s of religious, or species-based brotherhood. The only, single pillar of our ideology, is the Turk. Our identity, our people. This is why we will succeed, even if the deluded likes of you oppose it, probably with little more than petitions, but I'm sure that a suitable brainwashing campaign by the media will handle this nicely.

Quote:What would I expect, I would expect that you would have moved past tribal politics and ridiculous ethnocentric worldviews which are based wholly in ignorance and have caused nothing but suffering and bloodshed since the dawn of time.
You've said it with your own words. Since the dawn of time, tribal politics and ethnocentric worldviews have caused wars and bloodshed. Meaning, it is impossible to transcend these views. It is even more impossible to build a form of thinking on species-based brotherhood. The only brotherhood mankind accepts is either based on race and ethnicity, or materialistic needs. People do not stay loyal to America because they believe in the brotherhood of races or nations or that humanity is one. They stay loyal to America because America propagates their dreams of materialism. There is no other reason why a person(aside from political prisoners, or prisoners of conscience) would emigrate to America.

However, there also is another rule, the golden rule. This applies to ethnicity based politics aswell. As long as we stay clear of the path of other races, we shall not be botherered. And if we are, we will at least have the moral superiority in fighting back.
Quote:That's reasonable, isn't it? A single world state? Sounds like a pipe dream. Could be a pleasant one, could be a nightmare. Yes, Mehm, I would love to see us all "re0united" as if we were ever separated to begin with.
If we weren't really seperated, how does it come that I have to learn your language to communicate with you in this fine forum, with fine people?
Species based ideals do not hold true, even in nature. A nest of ants would fight with a neighboring nest of ants for survival. They would not "unite" their nests and begin to harvest resources together. If they did, we'd soon face an army of ants, trying to devour the flesh off our bones.
Competition, and tribalism is the nature of the world. Get over it.
Quote:We have no enemies here but ourselves, it would seem to be a pretty damned smart move to go ahead and do away with that one, what with it being something we should be able to control pretty well. What won;t work, who the fuck do you think I am, and have you ever once asked me my politcal views in all of this time you've been screaming about mutts and pure-bloods? No, you haven't.
I do not have to ask a question of which I already know the answer to, but I'll bite. What are your political views?
Quote:You've done nothing but tell me about myself and what I believe and why I believe it, and all of this based upon what you think my blood is or isn't, and what you think that means. I've explained this to you already Mehm. This is fairy tale bullshit.
Just as you, friend. I've spoken to you of your blood, as your blood is not really much of concern to you, as you tell me that it should not be a concern for me. But it is. It has to. What am I, if not the Turkish blood would be flowing through me? But your identity is certainly not dependent on the blood that flows within you.

Now answering creed of heresy. It is a very long reply and it came a bit late, but homeworks and studies have kept me from replying to you both for a few days.

Quote:I'll just interject a quick note; if all the Turks came together into a single or unity of Turkic states, it would be powerful indeed.
This is what we also hold. However, we'd use that power to help our own people. Not to show off our power to others.
Quote:Same can be said of ANY race, or nationality. If all the citizens in the US unified under a single political party and ideal? ...Well the rest of the world would be kneedeep in shit because then we'd all be easily misled fools, with no dissident voices, sitting on top of the most expensive, advanced, and battle-ready military in the world...
Certainly. If those races would unite, why would they really need to argue much about anything else? But it's not up to me to determine the pan-ideals of other races. Panslavism was already an ideal that was propagated, but never realized throughout Tzarist russia.
If the slavs would like to unite, let them.
But as for America, well, political unification isn't really akin to the unity I am laying forth for my own people. Of course, political unity is an important part of it, but first of all, we're trying to aim for a single ethnic consciousness, so that politics would not be able to ruin the brotherhood we aim for.
But well, I am also very unsure how political unity just within America will allow you to archive these things. You can certainly produce the world's most expensive, battle ready military in the world without political unity.

Quote:not to mention a looot of nuclear weaponry. If you want a fine example of Americans being easily misled and it having grave consequences for both Americans AND the rest of the world, you need only look at the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.
I know. This is why I view the current American mentality to be akin to the mentality of Nazi Germany, or Soviet union.
They saw people as "heaps" as "piles" of building materials to create something from it. However, the US differs in a single detail. It also propagates selfish individualism, so that people are too busy with their materialistic needs to actually care about much, and vote accordingly, to their materialistic needs. The media handles the rest, as they are the shepherds of the masses, whereas the masses should be the shepherds of the media.
Quote:You say America "steals" the best talent from other nations. That would imply taking something not rightfully ours.
Indeed. If you had paid for the education, fed the student throughout his studies, clothed him, gave him a place to stay and etc. etc. You'd be entitled to that person.
However, we do the above mentioned things, mostly free, or for the least amount of money(Unlike in the US, where it is not free.), so that our students will have an easy life through college, and can concentrate on their studies and social development, instead of rambling about monetary problems. If such a student would leave our country to work in America, I would simply state that this is nothing more than the theft of the brains that we, the Turkish people have raised with our own funds, without asking anything in return.

How unlike America, which actually seems to discourage it's people from seeking higher education by making it as expensive as possible?
The US is simply looking to snatching educated minds from other countries, while producing less on it's own, mostly those who have the money to pay for it.
Quote: But the thing is, we are a republic, built on law and founded on a constitution protecting the individual and exhorting him to exercise the freedom of him or herself within a fair, moral boundary [IE, no killing and the like; the rule of law]. You say we steal. We say we liberate.
The fact that you do not kidnap gifted people from their respective countries doesn't mean that you're not stealing them. Liberating them? From what? From being useful to their own people and country?
Sure, you give them a lot more money than they would probably earn in their home countries. This is nothing more than enslaving the nation that person comes from.
Quote:Korean government considers the paltry few who escape to South Korea as property stolen from them by the South and its "western devil allies," as they love to call us. Many Americans, however, mistake the idea of "liberating others." They think it involves bombs and rifles and stealth fighters. It does not. Liberty is an idea. An idea is more than a weapon, more than a man, and so long as it is just and fair, it is bulletproof.
Well, North Korea is a child born from the battle of ideas and ideologies.
The fact that they were still unable to move on from communism whereas it's two crucial allies, Russia and China have abandoned communism makes me think though. Why?
Quote:Our government, for the moment, is failing us. But we have the advantage over ancient empires of the past; we live in the age of information. And the American people are long past the point of being merely pissed off. We are undergoing political upheaval, though it's downplayed. New political parties are gaining power, overthrowing the current balance. This new party is crap, of course, but it has done all it needs to do; it's begun to change the political system of there only being two views, two ideas, two opinions.
So does out government, friend. However, I view the difference between ideas in simply the details.
In general terms, both claim to serve similar things.
In practice, they do not. So how does it really lay down on the mind of an individual? Something that is bad in practice, but sounds nice in theory?
Or something that sounds nice in theory, and is also somewhat applicable?
I'm not stating anything that is bad in practice. As I said, we've been through many ideas, many ideologies to realize which ones are applicable or not. We've tried to applied the lot of them, all, but all, have failed.
The only thing that was truly realized, at the start of our republic, is our form of thought. Our founding fathers were able to realize what we have advocated for so long after their work has been undone by certain other politicians who laid their own interests before the interests of the general public.
This is why I do not trust no politician, or politic party to actually solve things.
Not within the current democratic system anyways.
I generally criticize the Communists. However, the single party state, fixed firmly on a single ideal, is generally able to archive that ideal, at least partially. Why? As a party, they do not have to worry about elections. That is why they did not have to worry about public opinion. This is why they were essentially free to do as they saw fit. Their failure was not in their application of the single-party system, but in the ideology that was behind this party-communism, an ideology that is impossible to realize.
But a multiparty system requires politicians to think of ways of changing, misleading and manipulating public opinion, polls, events, statements and other things.
Their goals are always on the short-term. Never do they think of what will happen with them in the next hundred years. Nor do they lay policies or build political platforms based on their projects for the next hundred years. People do not like to dwell in the future, and they vote for parties that give them treats and sweets for the current time being, and they are gone in the next election if another party is offering better sweets and treats for the masses. The masses can never, ever bring forward a truly reasonable election-even if they are well educated, and well informed, they still have individual thoughts and ideals-selfishness drives them to vote for a party that they see close to their own ideals.

All parties promise good governance. But it's in the details, from which they gain the votes.
For that reason, I oppose this so-called democracy. Another failed, good in theory, bad in practice system of governance.
Quote:The greatest minds of today are all men of American, English, German, and Japanese education, in that order. The great feats of engineering are wrought by men not necessarily of these nations but of these nations' education, and for those nations. It is no coincidence that all technological innovations come from these four nations. Gone are the days of numbers meaning everything. A single man with a remote control can bomb an enter company of soldiers into the ground from 5000 miles away without having to do much more than ask his assistant to bring him a coffee. A hundred laborers by hand cannot do the job of a single man with a set of manufacturing equipment.
Indeed. But I do not dwell too much in the presence. I only view the present time as an incentive. These are the facts. How can we, as the Turkish nation, surpass these men in the fields of education and science?
We can't, if we can't even hold our greatest minds within the borders of our own country for too long. With these minds gone, all we have is to ask other countries for the technologies they manufacture.

This is technological dependency. My ideas are fixed towards ending this dependency. For that purpose, I study. For that purpose, I will live in my own country, and offer my education to the wellbeing of my own people.
I look forward to the future, I do not dwell too long on the present, as the present can be quite misleading.
Why? Those who perceive a current greatness within themselves, without thinking of the future, can become lost in their vanity. Their current greatness actually means nothing in the 4000 years old human history. Back then, the greatest minds in the fields of science came from the Egyptians and Greeks. Now, look at them.
If we say today, that we will never be able to surpass the US or Japan in terms of technological advancement, does this ring true for the near or far future?
Not at all, I'd say. Only a slave would willingly sacrifice his future for the present.
Quote:You say it's in your heritage to rise up and be great by unity. I say the man with the best equipment and brain wins.
And I say that only unity can bring us advancement in technological and military means.
What are we Turks, divided? But united, we have at least a weight on our own. Shared resources, funds, peoples.
Maybe this unity will allow our minds abroads to see the brains we viewed as lost, to return to his own lands, and work for the wellbeing of his own people. But I'm looking at things from the bleakest point as possible. Even if our wild horses do not return to their fields, we still have many, many generations before us. We can certainly build things anew.
The words of Ismail Gaspıralı say, "Unity in tongue, thought and work".
If we can archive this, I am certain that technological advancement will be the only thing left for us to worry about. But first, we need to archive this unity.
And this comes first, with economic independence. At least to a degree where our people are able to live what I consider to be the bare minimum standards, like free education, healthcare, and adequate jobs, a home and etc. If we Turks archive this economic and social advancement, we can talk of a unity.
I hope I make myself clear.
Quote:And the American idea of you doing what you want to do for your own life and purpose has, is, and always will be far more enticing than selection of superiority based on bloodlines.
Well, this of course, is your own opinion. But what good did it for you until now, friend? I see people in this forum that constantly bombard politicians, and people who do not hold the same views on public healthcare services, which is a concept beyond the lifes of people other than your own, and requires you to think of things in a more collective, national way.
It is really beyond me how you can tell me that you support strong individualism(which you tell me is the American idea of life), and then come before me and support public healthcare at the same time.
And even aside from that, this public healthcare system will be implemented in America. Not somewhere else, and will only serve Americans, and peoples that are currently within the borders of your country. As the US is not built on any ethnic identity, I guess there is nothing else for you but to extend this to national boundaries.
I extend this to people that are of my blood bonds. Turks, from all over the world, are my brethren. I open my homes to them in their times of need, I feed, I clothe them. I have done this for students who came from other Turkic countries. They were baffled to see the Turks from the other side of the Caspian sea, who were introduced to them during Soviet times as barbarians and destructive men of no valor, still hold the idea of Turkic brotherhood and unity dear, and many have been active writers for long in our now (forcibly)closed magazine advocating our ideals, which I named after the first magazine that was published by Nihal Atsız. Orkhun, the place where the inscriptions of Kül Tegin and Bilge Khan were found.

The bonds of blood, are always strong, friend. They surpass things such as economic bonds, or bonds of geographical measure, which are thin as a thread.
Quote: To that end...I am afraid you are chasing a pipe dream.
If I chase after a pipe dream, what are you doing, friend? Advocating living only for personal gain, all the while advocating public healthcare? The American way of life and "thinking", certainly brings forward only these incentives. Living for personal gain, living for personal prosperity. This is the same thing that constantly drives you to snatch the educated minds of other nations, as you can't be bothered with raising your own, unless they're rather amongst the richer sections of society. And the same incentive requires those people to show as little mercy as possible towards the poorer sections, all the while maximizing their profits. Your entire society hangs by a thread. I'm sure that we will see riots in the US that go beyond what the hippies and occupy wallstreet chantards have accomplished(nothing), if you continue this selfish way of thinking.
Now come and tell me that I'm chasing after a dream, all the while you're walking the path of truth. No, friend. I am very realistic in all of my ideals. I know what can be realized, and what cannot be. I have weighed the circumstances, the demands of our people, what we need to fulfill these demands, and how we will fulfill these demands.
I've come to a single conclusion. Turan. Anything else is not really in our favour, and has never been.
[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?
Reply
#56
RE: Nationalism and secularism
Quote:In case you just can't bear to read that,
I did read a lot on that subject already.
This is a generic answer that we usually get from people who oppose Turkic unity. That there is no "genetic relationship" between our peoples.
Quote:in case you would rather ignore it, the paper states in no uncertain terms, based upon Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA that this massive turkish migration and empire fairy tale you love so much simply does not seem to have occurred.
Oh. And with how many people this said genetical comparison was made?
I don't remember me participating in this test. Nor have I heard of any of my relatives, friends or their relatives participating in this test.
Besides, we have historical evidence of a large migration of Turks to Anatolia.
If you want to read, read. Else, begone.
Quote: That there is no pure "Turkic" current of blood in Turkey.
It rather depends on what you define as pure. In your terms, there is probably no "pure" Turkic blood anywhere. In this long period of Turkic migration from Mongolia to central asia to the Balkans, Turks have intermarried with locals.
However, from the first two migrations, this being the Huns, Avars, Bulgars and Khazars simply disappeared into nowhere. They are no more, they have been fully absorbed by the people they have come across.
The same did not occur with the second Turkic migration of z-type Turkic speakers. By your accord, the Turkish presence within anatolia should have been a short breeze just like the Hunnic presence in Europe. They came, raided, looted, and forced entire hosts of peoples to migrate into Europe. But they vanished into thin air.
How did we, managed to survive, and thrive in this environment of people, with no other Turkic people around to relate with?
The answer is simple. A constant trickle of Turkic migration. There is no other explanation. History shows that Turkic people are generally very bad at assimilating locals, and individually, prone to assimilation themselves, linguistically, ethnically and culturally.
The Bulgars, who were a Turkic speaking tribe, have only left their name for the current Bulgarian nation, which is ethnially, culturally and linguistically a slavic people. Same with the Cuman presence in Hungaria.
More than a hundred thousand Cumans are said to have migrated to Hungaria during the Mongol Invasion, leaving behind place names, but little else. Their contribution to the cultural mark of Hungary is near-zero.
It can be said that the Austrian presence left a greater mark.

So, where does this lead us to? The Turks of Anatolia must be descendants of the same Turks who have come into Anatolia, throughout the Turkic migrationary period, which extends to as long as the early stages of the Ottomans.
Believe it or not.

However, Turkification did occur, but it occured only through intermarriages. And if the children from this intermarriage, married with another Turk, and if the children of that marriage married with another, that one, two or three foreign ancestor is rather irrelevant on determining the purity of the blood of that Turk, even if the progenitor himself was a male of non-turkic ancestry.
From our part, we make no such distinction.

Quote:This would explain the absolute lack of archaeological, historical, or linguistic evidence we would expect to find from such a thing.
What kind of an archeological, historical or linguistic evidence would you expect? There are mosques, dating back to Seljuk times. The time where Turks arrived to Anatolia.
Historically, Turkish presence in Anatolia is well documented. Depictions of Turks of that time, and forward are also in consistency with history.
Linguistically, we speak the Oghuz branch of the Turkish language, closely related to Azerbaijani and Turkmen.
What sorts of evidence do you expect?
Quote:13%, that would be the number that the researchers arrived at with regards to Anatolia specifically.
13% of the Total population is of Turkish ethnicity? I guess that these researchers you speak of have taken blood samples of 100% of the total population in Turkey to make such a ridiculous statement.
Labeling our peoples as a foreign, barbaric horde of the east was a popular statement of the past. Now, labeling our peoples as not a foreign, barbaric horde is a popular statement, as we have seen it fit to forge connections with our equally, barbaric relatives of the east.
Politics, nothing more.
Quote:The Huns you blather on about so boastfully are in a similar position. We have no reason to assume that they were some single, united ethnicity.
Well, *you* don't assume anything. We, and by we, I mean the Turkic world, know for a fact that the Huns were a collection of Turanic peoples, mostly Turks that spoke r-turkic dialects, were the Huns that have ravaged Europe. This can be seen from the tribes that have continued their existence there without using the collective name that the Huns gave themselve.
Onogurs, Kutrigurs and other tribes, many of those who have joined the Hungarians, later, the Bolgars, Avars and Khazars, were relatives of the Huns in terms of the dialects of Turkish they spoke.
You come in here with your limited knowledge about Turkic history and seek to undermine me. I laugh.

Quote: We have every reason to assume that they were a convenient horde of disparate cultures and ethnicities that formed an alliance as quickly as they were able to break it (and this might explain why "The Mighty Huns" disappear less than a year after Atilla's death).
Convenient, they were. A horde, they were. A tribal confederation, they were. However, you are also ignorant on Turkic customs of dividing the country amongst the sons from the first consort of the Khan. The country was simply divided. They did not disappear. However, the majority of the tribes that made up the confederation have joined up with other tribes that followed the Huns. The Bolgars, Avars and Khazars are some of these. And I guess you're going to dispute the ethnicity of those too, eh?
I'm giving weekly lectures in our fraternity on Turkic history. I've read and reserached far extensively than you did with your short mind on this subject.
Quote: This "turkish identity", this "turkish blood" that you seem to feel is so superior to the rest of ours is that of migrants, and mixed ethnicities. The only thing that bound all of these people together was a "somewhat" common language.
Well, how well did this common language theory apply to the Turkish speaking Greeks in Anatolia? They wrote in Greek letters, they dressed like Turks, however, they did not practice a large number of Turkish customs, and they were *known* to be different from the rest of the Turks in the area for that regard. During the population exchange of after the War of Independence, these Greeks who self-identified as Greeks, even though they spoke Turkish, and dressed Turkish, were the first ones to mount to boats that went to Greece.
Or the Bosniaks of the Balkans, similar to the Turk in most aspects of religion, custom and culture, even called "Turk" by their christian slavic neighbors, revolted against the authority of the Turk, from whom they are indistinguishable in terms of religion and culture?

These are only a few examples of how languge, religion or culture, are not enough to make up a people. This is why I know that the empty insult of "Bastard" that you throw at our nation is simply another desperate attempt to keep us from communicating with our brethren in the east.
Quote:The turkic language became the lingua franca of the steppes in the same way that english is now the lingua franca of business (and the world). It's easy to see how this occurred.
Lingua franca? Did you know that the lingua franca of the Seljuk empire constituted of Persian and Arabic? The Seljuk rulers never spoke their native language in court, or in public. They adressed to their servants in Persian only, while handling religious matters in Arabic.
Similarly, if we take a look at the Turks of Cyprus, we can see that many of them speak perfect Greek, even though all know their native language aswell. However, from regional accounts, I know that the number of Greeks who speak perfect Turkish was very, very rare, just like the numbers of ethnic Kurds who spoke Turkish was very very rare back in the days of the early Turkish republic. The common folk simply did not bother with it, even now, there are many elderly people who did not receive primary education in Turkish schools, who cannot speak a single, Turkish word.
The Greeks, on the other hand, who lived in Urban populations, were a minority. Those who lived in rural areas, however, were very like the kurds, people who did not speak Turkish. Their heads of the village spoke Turkish, and only to communicate with locals in the Bazaars.
And the Turkish speaking Greek of Karaman still identified himself as a Greek.
There are many many such examples how how Turkish did not qualify as a lingua franca anywhere in the middle east. It was only spoken by ethnically Turkish people, and those who had to meet Turks on a regular basis, mostly by people in urban areas.

Quote:You wanted to be able to at least attempt to talk the little raiding band of mounted archers out of raping your daughter (clearly, by the study above..it didn't work). So, which 13% of Turkey (or anywhere else) would you like to claim by right of blood today?
I've already disproved your little *study* that claims to have the gene map of Turkey. I know that they do not have such a thing.
Your claims that Turkey's Turks are a result of a small band of mounted archers that came and went as a breeze, leaving no genetic marks but somewhat managed to culturally assimilate the whole lot of the place is simply ridiculous. And even the fact that Turkish was used as a pidgin or lingua franca doesn't really change this fact. Greek was the lingua franca of the world during the times of Alexander. No Greek populations can be found in the far wide corners to which his empire spanned.
So was Latin, and now, English. Yet you don't call yourself english, just as the Irishmen who can't speak a single word of Irish doesn't call himself english. Really, give me a break.
Quote:You know, the paper goes on, further stating that no link can be found between "turkish" peoples and their supposed origins all the way back to the steppes of Mongolia.
Of course, of course. There is no, no link whatsoever. I don't really understand these attempts to discredit us of our rightful heritage. I guess people are a bit too scared when they think of Turkey leading the spearhead of a Turkic union, they attempt to break our bonds by claiming that we have no rights to lead such a union, as we're not Turkic anyways.
And a year ago, Sarkozy said that Turkey has no rights to be in the EU, as we're not European anyways. Really, what's the point? They did the same to the Hungarians, but they could not simply discredit them from their part of the European heritage, so they try to undermine their heritage that links to Attila's Huns.
But people always know who they are. No matter how many lies you bring before them, how many inconsistent policies you try to apply against them, it does not work.
Quote:Seems you folks have been fucking the locals with every step you took from wherever the hell you came from.
Oh, I guess someone is very mad. Even if we fuck a local, that local becomes the part of the local community. We do not allow bastards to remain within our communities.
Quote: Your blood is so damned mixed we can't even tell for sure anymore. All we have are folk stories and fairy tales of dubious quality.
As you never bothered with reading Turkic history, I guess it's rather easy for you to diss everything I bring forth as folk and fairy tales. However, these are well documented "folk and fairy tales" by other resources. My blood is still the same, pure Turkish blood. Our family history goes a long way. These are enough to prove my purity and worth to myself, and my people. You can believe the fairy tale like *study*, which conflicts with history and sociology you've quoted here as much as you want.

Quote:Since we've handled the "pure" bit, lets move on to the "superior" bit. I haven't seen you point to anything beyond the Huns, Khanate, and Ottomans in support of this, so it would seem to me that you feel that military prowess (even if it is a thing of the past, currently melted away, is what gives ones ethnicity "superiority" over the others). Well, let me show you a couple of little maps.
Our superiority isn't just in our empires.
You still have not grasped this, and will never grasp it with your simple mind.
Quote:Each of these empires (in addition to being vast and powerful) contributed to the sciences and humanities in ways that anything even resembling a Turkish Empire has never been able to match. The greatest claim to fame from a turkish anything would be agriculture, which happened 10,00 years ago, and unfortunately, was driven by people who were not Turks, by your definition. Even the crumbling little fiefdoms of Europe which your migrant ancestors so easily overran (and let's not ignore the effect of their infighting on how easily this was accomplished, even if only temporarily) were able to contribute more to your very own existence than your ancestors were able to muster.
And? Where are they now? Where is their presence in those lands?
Besides, their contributions are nothing to me. They are simply tools that we can use to further our own greatness. Besides, our starting positions and the conditions we have lived in differed entirely from those peoples you have mentioned, who lived sedentary, settled lifestyles, on lands they can plough, and cities they can build. They can afford to busy themselves in the arts of science. We came from the steppe, a hostile environment, where tribal warfare and competition for grasslands were common.
Even in that state, we have fought, defeated and forced the Chinese to pay tribute to us. Then, we migrated, a long time after the Roman empire had it's prime and came into contact with those cultures.
We were able to outlast those given the conditions we lived in.
Now, we live on a vast area, spreading from the Balkans to Siberia.
These enough are alone to prove our superiority to me. To prove our superiority to you, we'd have to mop the floor with your heads one more time. But we're tired of fighting and war. We want to live our lives in peace and develop in harmony.
But I guess people do not want this, as they are trying every way possible to discredit us from our heritage.

Quote:So, pure? Not a chance in hell. Superior? Doesn't look to be the case.
From the point of a mixed-blood such as yours, superiority and purity lose their meaning. Even if you saw a *study* that proved our purity and superiority you'd still bitch and moan on how we're impure and inferior, just because we dare to say it and be proud of it.
Quote: You are my brother, and it embarrases the shit out of me to know this.
You are not my brother. A friend, maybe. But brotherhood is only in blood.
I ought to be of the same womb as the other to claim brotherhood. We Turks are of the womb of Turan. You are of another. You have not proven to me the brotherhood of humanity today. In fact, you've shown me how much this brotherhood of yours is nothing more than crap, laid forward by people of your make-up.
Quote: Why is it that I seem to be so much more interested in our "blood" and our history?
There is no common blood and history to speak of. Your words don't even ring true for nature. Even there, there are tribes, customs.
I only call those with whom I have more similarities beyond having a similar body my brothers.
Quote:Interested enough, at least, to desire a factually accurate picture of who we are, where we came from, and how we got where we stand now. Why are you so satisfied with fairy tales?
You're still calling historical facts "fairy tales". I guess it just causes some sort of trouble in your mind that we might just be what I am telling you what we are.
We are Turks, we were Turks, and we will be Turks in the future.
It just baffles me that a non-turk reserves himself the right to tell a Turk that he isn't one. Leave this to us, as we can make this distinction properly.
Quote: Rhetorical, they allow you to smugly state your personal superiority without having to actually accomplish or contribute anything, bigot.
There you are wrong. I am constantly trying to contribute to the wellbeing of my people and the furthering of my ideology.
There is nothing personal here. If I were to boast my personal superiority, I'd talk of my physical strength and academic accomplishments.
I feel no such need, as those two are only means to serve my people.
I have no vanity in that regard.
Quote:They allow you to draw an imaginary line between yourself and these "noble" warriors you so desperately wish that you could be, civilian.
But that is who I am. I come from a family of soldiers. Unfortunately, I was the one to break the line of soldiery, as my family wanted me to go to a university. I will still perform my military service, and hopefully, go against our enemies, maybe fall in battle.
But in purely social terms, I'm a civillian, but in spirit, I am a warrior.
Just as my forefathers.
Being a civillian in spirit, is to be nothing more than a slave. I try to awaken the warrior spirit amongst my people, not to propagate the civillian mentality.
Quote: Is your present so dismal, your lot in life so meager, that you have to manufacture a fantasy to get you through your day to day? Are you so disenfranchised, so dissatisfied?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. My lot in life is to serve my own kind. What greater lot could be there? I lead a good life, I have no complaints, on a personal level. But I am dissatisfied with the present day affairs for my own kin. I hold no personal griefs, nor do I hold personal vendettas in anything.
Quote:Maybe you should work on that, rather than wasting your time with this sort of bullshit. You might just end up happier, and I can almost guarantee that you would come across as a whole hell of a lot less ignorant.
Yes, so as others tell me. "Live your life" they say. I hope that my grandchildren will be able to live their lives as good as I do, with this sort of thinking. I see ignorance in that. I see ignorance in seeing life as nothing more than "living through it", rather than "living meaningfully".
My life has a purpose, a meaning. That purpose stems from my blood, my heritage. I don't think there is anything more normal than this.

Calling my people a people of bastards is an insult I will not hold against you. You are ignorant, you know no history, nor do you know much about the geography or the people that we have to live with in these parts of the world to speak much truth in your words.
[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?
Reply
#57
RE: Nationalism and secularism
What a hefty list of rationalizations for abject ignorance you've amassed for yourself. Let's take a look at a few choice examples:

You are not being oppressed. Turkey is a -founding- member of NATO. It wasn't conscripted or drafted into it. You helped us to form it. You are also founding members of The OECD, The OIC, OSCE, ECO, BSEC, and G-20. Turkey is a non-elected permanent member of the UN Security Council. You have benefited directly from the United States throughout the entirety of the Cold War and recently, in your bid to join the European Union. Your armed forces are the second largest standing forces in NATO, and are comprised of weapons largely of US origin. You managed to attract $22billion in FDI recently. You are your own sovereign nation. All that you would hope and dream for has already been accomplished. You're simply dissatisfied with it because it includes people who are the wrong shade of lipstick. Fuck off.

Speaking of the wrong shade of lipstick. You've waffled back and forth in these last two posts between "blood" and culture. How, precisely, would the consortium of cultures speaking the same lingua franca make you (or anyone) "pure-blooded" turk, whilst simultaneously not being capable of making myself, for example, a "pure-blooded" american? That's right, it wouldn't. "Turk" and "American" are identical in this regard. People from many places and many different backgrounds assembled under one banner (at least for a time, if not now) and speaking a common language. Should I start screaming "Rahowa" now? I give you a nice tidy little study and all of a sudden actual blood isn't good enough for you. Archaeology isn't good enough for you? You'd prefer your personal myth structure over genetics and fact? Unsurprising. This again touches on the nature of your faith in bigotry, and to answer your question, I never lost any faith. I never had one. You're going to trot out tired apologetic shit we see day in and day out "Well, maybe there isn't any evidence, but we don't expect that there would be". I remain unconvinced. My knowledge of Turkish history looks to be more competent than your own. I refer to archaeology, linguistics, and genetics. You have myths. If you want to "disprove" -someone else's study- then go do some science. Start by getting yourself sequenced. Get all of your pure-blooded buddies sequenced. Let's see what sort of story your blood has to tell?

You dismiss the empires and accomplishments of others so very easily, why then should we not dismiss your own? You say that these things mean nothing to you, but then go on to claim that they will be the tools you use to establish Turan? Sounds like they mean a great deal to you, if this pipe dream of Turan means anything to you. You know the thing that just astounds the shit out of me here, with the whole Turan bit? You make appeals to your ancestors, but seem to ignore precisely why they did so well. You would exclude this or that peoples as being part of this "Turkic" power, but this isn't how your ancestors accomplished what they did. They went around gathering everyone they could find under their banner, and then attacked a fractured Europe so busy fighting itself that it could not defend it's borders. Culturally diverse and united peoples have consistently beaten the shit out of their enemies since the dawn of time. But this is all besides the point. You have a country, it is a democracy. You want Turan? Make it so. If you can't get the votes, then "you" as in the turkish people, do not want Turan. That would make it the petty little fantasy of a fringe group of racists. Which is precisely what it seems to be......

I've noticed that the strongest rebuttal you seem to have in your toolkit is that I am mixed blood, or simple. One isn't an insult, it's a compliment. Hybrid vigor over racist fairy tales any day of the week. The other seems to be a sigh of frustration. If this mutt were so simple you'd have long ago been able to persuade me to see the light with your well thought out, competent, and factually accurate arguments. You have not, and cannot, because they are not. You know I've finally realized what it is about you that gives me such a soft spot for you even though you consistently fly off at the mouth with shit like this. You remind me very much of my own family.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#58
RE: Nationalism and secularism
Quote:You are not being oppressed.
It is not just about me, friend. Turkey doesn't need to be under enemy occupation to know about it. Besides, many of our brothers are under the oppression of the slav and the chinese in Eurasia, so that the fact that we're not as oppressed as they are still doesn't change anything about their condition. Once more, freedom will come to our people from the east, but Turkey must be in a position to take a temporary leadership in securing the economical and cultural independence of our comrades in central asia and elsewhere, we should also encourage immigration from lands such as Afghanistan, where many Turkmens and Usbeks live, to our own lands.
Quote:Turkey is a -founding- member of NATO. It wasn't conscripted or drafted into it. You helped us to form it
We did, as the Soviets were a big enough threat for us to look for allies. But now, such an alliance has no value no more. Just like we have used the Soviets in our war for independence, we should have used the NATO, and parted in friendship.
Now, the NATO is the reason why there are foreign bases in our lands. It is time we quit this unnecessary alliance and look for new horizons.
Quote: in your bid to join the European Union
This bid is nothing more than a dream. The Europeans will never let us in their Union, nor do our people want to be a part of this union.
Quote:You are your own sovereign nation.
No thanks to you, though.
Quote: You're simply dissatisfied with it because it includes people who are the wrong shade of lipstick.
I am dissatisfied with it, because we have to align ourselves with people who view us not as mutual allies, but would have us rather as their dogs, their guardian pets in the middle east. We do not need the europeans, nor the americans to form our future. This is as simple as that. And as for your last advice, maybe that's what you should do. It's not us who are consistently overstepping our boundaries to look for new places to siphon natural resources from.
Just as the NATO was a guardian of freedom during the days of the Cold war, now it has taken it upon itself to enslave others. This alliance is no longer in our best interests.
Quote: You've waffled back and forth in these last two posts between "blood" and culture. How, precisely, would the consortium of cultures speaking the same lingua franca make you (or anyone) "pure-blooded" turk, whilst simultaneously not being capable of making myself, for example, a "pure-blooded" american?
No. Americans are not an ethnicity. They are a nation that are founded on the accord of living on the same land, a geographical union. Turks, however, are an ethnic group. I guess you simply don't understand these notions.
Besides from having the same language and culture, we are of the same ethnicity, same blood. Else, we would not call ourselves Turks, but something else. Else, we would not speak Turkish.
Turk and American, are not identical in any way.
"American" is nothing more than a nationality. "Turk" is both an ethnicity, a word used by all Turks to denote Turks around the world, whatever their tribe might be, and the official term for nationality used in Turkey, as Turkey was founded as a primarily Turkish dominated country, as it is now.
But there is no "ethnic" american, outside of groups what we can denote as native-americans, or red indians.
Quote: People from many places and many different backgrounds assembled under one banner
In the case of Turkey, only people of the same background have assembled together. Only Turks. Just, Turks. Turks from Balkans, Iraq, Crimea and other places of Tzarist Russia have flocked to Turkey exclusively because it was a Turkish country. If you knew anything about Turkey's history, you probably would know what you're talking about.
Quote:I give you a nice tidy little study and all of a sudden actual blood isn't good enough for you.
If this study of yours is incorrect and inaccurate, what can I do?
Besides, as you have not read any Turkish nationalists writers, you obviously do not have any idea what I'm talking about. I've explained here on various accords that purity in Turkish blood is measured in ancestry. If the last two ancestries of a person are Turkish, we know for sure that person is ethnically a full blooded Turk. Looking back nine or ten generations to find a single albanian in the bloodline is not really something a normal person would do. And the fact that there was a single deviation would not make the person less of a Turk. Of course, that is not to suggest that I do not know for a fact that Anatolia is genetically also Turkish. I've seen studies that have said the quite opposite of what you've said. But if I'd post them over here, you'd probably dismiss them as nationalist propaganda.
This is why I have tried to explain things to you in a way from which you can draw your own conclusions, but it seems like you simply want to believe in what you want to.
This of course, is your choice.
Quote:Archaeology isn't good enough for you? You'd prefer your personal myth structure over genetics and fact?
Archaeology? I don't know what sort of an archaeological evidence you want to put before me, but if you want to talk in terms of skull measurements and shapes, I can tell you, you're in deep trouble. The Turanoid skull type is the most prevailant type in Turkey. Dolicosephalic skull shapes are to come by in the heavily armenoid type populations of Kurdish dominated regions. Maybe they did these genetic tests in Diyarbakır? I guess the Turkish population in that city was about 10%(mostly gov. clerks, teachers and etc. from other regions in Turkey), the rest were kurds, armos and syriacs.
And as I said, I have genetic studies that present the quite opposite of what you state. Posting them here would change your opinion as my opinion was changed by yours. Plus, I have history on my side.
Quote:I remain unconvinced. My knowledge of Turkish history looks to be more competent than your own. I refer to archaeology, linguistics, and genetics. You have myths. If you want to "disprove" -someone else's study- then go do some science. Start by getting yourself sequenced. Get all of your pure-blooded buddies sequenced. Let's see what sort of story your blood has to tell?
Really, as I live by your conviction that I'd die by your disbelief. You have no knowledge of Turkish history. If you had any, you would not come before me with such things.
As you refer to those things, so do we. We already have disproved your studies. We have our own. But obviously, nothing that we will ever do will be enough for you, as it never was. I can very well get myself sequenced. But why would I? I do not doubt the purity of my blood. If I were like a mixed blood, who did not know who he was, or where he came from, I'd consider getting a gene test. But I know my family history well. I certainly need no such test.
Quote:You dismiss the empires and accomplishments of others so very easily, why then should we not dismiss your own?
You already do, as a matter of fact. The west has long dismissed our accomplishments, and tried to erase us from history a couple of times, but failed.
And American accomplishments...Well, for a relatively new country, not bad, but still, why should I really be in awe at your thin list, in comparison with our grand past?
The only people I see that could rival us in that, are the Indians(not the red indians), Persians, Greeks and Chinese. The rest are really irrelevant in my eyes.

Quote:You say that these things mean nothing to you, but then go on to claim that they will be the tools you use to establish Turan?
Indeed. What else? I already said that we do not support an isolationist approach to world politics.
Did Chingiss Khan, who knew nothing of building siege equipment, use the knowledge he learned from the Chinese to besiege cities?
Did the Kypchaks not adopt local variaties of the Chainmail into their armour?
Of course, we are going to use modern technology, but one thing we won't do, is to do the same mistakes of the past, and depend on others for our technological advancement.
Quote:You make appeals to your ancestors, but seem to ignore precisely why they did so well. You would exclude this or that peoples as being part of this "Turkic" power, but this isn't how your ancestors accomplished what they did. They went around gathering everyone they could find under their banner, and then attacked a fractured Europe so busy fighting itself that it could not defend it's borders.
Well, there you are wrong, it seems like you know nothing of Turkish history, once again. True, the Huns had quite a lot of allies amongst the Germanic tribes. But most were well documented tribes who have once again, revolted against the Huns after Attila's death, and now constitute a part of the modern Germanic peoples of Europe.
As we're not going to invade Europe once more, we do not need the assistance of dependencies and client kingdoms, as we had during the Ottoman days, like Hungary, Wallachia, and etc.
Now, we have ethnically stable nation states, definite borders. We just need to unite, that is all.
Quote:Culturally diverse and united peoples have consistently beaten the shit out of their enemies since the dawn of time.
Culturally diverse, true. United, wrong. Were the Ottomans, culturally "diverse" ever united? 600 years did their empire last, but I saw no shred of unity amongst them, as their empire is now fractured into many, many more states. As though most of them were little more than tax-revenues anyways! Christians were not allowed to fight, arabs, albanians, and bosniaks served as little more than militia, all the while Turks were still the backbone of the army until the last days of the Empire!
This is why the Ottoman Empire was rightfully known as a Turkish empire, rather than a "multiethnical" empire. This is why none of the other states besides Turkey were held accountable for Ottoman war debts, this is why no other country includes the Ottoman empire as a part of their heritage.

Culturally diverse, yes, but dominated by the Turk, our empires always were.
Quote:You have a country, it is a democracy. You want Turan? Make it so. If you can't get the votes, then "you" as in the turkish people, do not want Turan. That would make it the petty little fantasy of a fringe group of racists. Which is precisely what it seems to be......
This is our goal. But I don't know how you can call it a petty little fantasy from our part, while we have seen many, many fantasies passing us by...
Turan is not a fantasy, it is a much needed reality. I don't need you to grasp this, I need our people to grasp this reality. You call it a pipe dream as much as you will. It is not within your lips to say so.
Quote:I've noticed that the strongest rebuttal you seem to have in your toolkit is that I am mixed blood, or simple.
I did not use your mixed-blood as a rebuttal. I use it to let you know what you are. I use it to let you know why you oppose the idea of a pure-blood so much.
Quote:One isn't an insult, it's a compliment. Hybrid vigor over racist fairy tales any day of the week.
If you take it as a compliment, fine by me. However, I don't view it as an insult either. I would, if I were a mixed blood, though.
For me, it's just a string of words to denote what a person is in my eyes.
I could say it immidiately tells me something about your way of thinking. And it did, certainly, throughout our conversation. You act very much like the mixed bloods, and ethnic minorities in our country act towards Turks(poor bloods, as no mixed blood is ever a Turk in my eyes), regardless if they are outspoken, regardless of political ideologies.
They simply seem to hate the idea that a Turkish people exist in this country. They would like to think of this country as "the America of the middle east" and being a Turk simply being akin to an American, just as you put it forth. But when you explain it to them, they suddenly turn very very angry. Not the minorities, no, they hate to be called a Turk, and act very agitated if you keep calling them something they aren't, but half breeds are something else. They have both Turkish and some other blood in their veins. They cannot diss their Turkish identity, but they cannot fully adopt it because they have something else in there they're very well aware of. In my eyes, mixed bloods are more of a liability towards our cause more than any ethnic minority could ever be. For we know who the minorities are. But we can't always tell who the mixed blood is. He might be with us, next second, he might switch sides.


Quote: If this mutt were so simple you'd have long ago been able to persuade me to see the light with your well thought out, competent, and factually accurate arguments. You have not, and cannot, because they are not. You know I've finally realized what it is about you that gives me such a soft spot for you even though you consistently fly off at the mouth with shit like this. You remind me very much of my own family.
If you can't be persuaded, it's fine by me. Maybe I'll keep this thread handy to answer any further accusations you'll bring towards me in the future.
My ideals are firm as ever. They are, because you tried to answer my posts with a final insult. You called my people a bastard, as do the people of your likeness do here. At least you were more polite than they could ever be.
Let us end this discussion here.
[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?
Reply
#59
RE: Nationalism and secularism
You seem to be doing very well under the current conditions (all treaties and alliances considered). Again, you're just not happy with it personally, wrong shade of lipstick. Get your asses to the polls or stfu.

You became "Turks" by assembly. Once upon a time you were not. The same is true of Americans. Or maybe you just won't recognize us as an "ethnicity" for a few hundred years or so? This, case in point, is how all "ethnicities" were born, and is precisely why the term is absolutely meaningless and why it does not confer superiority in any case, ever. This is the position of genetics, archaeology, and linguistics. Yours is the position of racism, bigotry, and ignorance.

Was there anything I didn't address with these two short replies? I don't think so.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Agree/Disagree: is nationalism bad NuclearEnergy 10 2197 December 26, 2016 at 10:29 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Secularism.. lifesagift 12 2258 January 18, 2015 at 6:33 pm
Last Post: lifesagift
  On the logic of nationalism kılıç_mehmet 49 6963 January 29, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Last Post: kılıç_mehmet
  Battle around secularism in the Arab world? Something completely different 13 4015 August 19, 2013 at 2:07 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  China's nationalism mutating into aggression Creed of Heresy 23 8262 July 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Last Post: Creed of Heresy
  What is secularism for you? Something completely different 4 1381 January 18, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Last Post: jonb
  What really really constitutes secularism. kılıç_mehmet 11 5322 May 19, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Secularism petition (for UK members) groovydude89 7 2636 September 19, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Last Post: Cinjin
  Secularity and Secularism explained. Paul the Human 3 1629 April 21, 2010 at 5:16 am
Last Post: fr0d0



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)