Nationalism and secularism

[kılıç_mehmet]

Nationalism, in itself, is the opposite pole of two things: monarchism and theocratic rule.
We can see this in the French Revolution: The revolution was staged against both the Monarchy, and the theocratic rule, from which he claimed to have the power from. This is due to the fact that nationalism puts an emphasis on the ideal of the nation-not on the religious views of the people that constitute the nation. Even though it is generally not possible for people with major religious differences to build common nations, as we can see the case of Yugoslavia, I can say that nationalism aims to put religion into the field of the individual, and the nation as the prime glue to hold people together.
Due to this, nationalists generally promote secularist agendas.
In comparison with the communists, however, nationalists are not daydreamers-they do not try to accomplish the impossible. It has been established that the unificiation of different nations into a single state with a single identity is nothing more than a futile dream, unless one strips a people fully of their national identity, language, culture and racially assimilates them to a degree, which requires extensive colonisation, and much brute force to archive, which the Soviets have tried, but were unsuccessful, seeing in how many different states they had broke up into.

Nationalism is the search for national liberty. Culturally, economically and socially. It aims to bring the individuals together into a single powerful fist that strikes a common foe, a single mind that serves the nation, and therefore, serves the individual, therefore, serving the country.
This consciousness allows for gaps in the individual's life purpose to be filled with something else than religion, to the degree where religion is only a matter of an individual's conscience, not the conscience of the public. Nationalism allows nations to produce people that serve their people. Some might say that they rather serve mankind. That might too, be a noble purpose, but how can a person think of the trash of the town, while the trash before his house still remains and stinks?
Therefore, the salvation of mankind can only be archived by the advancement of different nations, which can be archived by the advancement of communities and individuals that serve the nation.

I'll give an example from my own ideology. I attended a political lecture a week ago in our university, given by a nationalist, sadly, politically active writer, who is the head of the idealist youth fraternities in Turkey.
After the lecture, I asked: What is the ultimate goal of a Turkish nationalist?
He answered. "Nizam-ı alem", an arabic phrase, which means "the order of the realm". The prime goal of bringing prosperity, order and stability to the world, and mankind.
Then I asked: What are the steps to archieving this goal?
The advancement of the country we live in. Turkey.
The formation of Turan.
The advancement and security of Turan.
And finally, the ultimate goal.

Personally, I see the ultimate goal as a bit far fetched, to be archived only by ourselves, but if all nations would follow similar steps for the betterment of their own nations, the whole lot of mankind would surely benefit from this. The failure of communism was here. It thought of uniting people by *class*, and saw the individuals as nothing more than a number amongst the crowd. They sought to assimilate people by force, not just culturally, but also economically, which has also failed, as we can see that certain ex-soviet countries are richer than others, whereas logically, they should be on the same level, according to the tenet of equal distribution.

Equal distribution is, however, not a too far fetched goal. It cannot be archived fully, maybe, but it can be the case that fundamental living conditions can be made accessible to everyone by the government, which can be archived by the consciousness of the nation-the notion that the person next to you, how poor, impoverished or underprivilaged he might be, he is still your brother as you and he are part of the same nation. You ask yourself, if I were in the same condition as he, and he were in the condition I live in today, would I expect his help? I should do the same.

However, communism does not require you to come to terms with this simple truth in your conscience, it takes your belongings away and distributes it amongst others, and expects you to come to terms to it by sheer brutality. As you are nothing more than a part of the crowd, communism expects you to follow blindly, without the shred of consciousness in what your economical emancipation is supposed to serve.
Communism is, in certain ways, another form of theocracy-it is not built on the tolerance of different religious views, although it practices the seperation of state and church, it does this by destroying any kind of church that is there. Not by instilling the thought that religion is a matter of conscience, but that religion is false outright, and the practice of it is generally discouraged, or forbidden outright, as with the case of Albania, where state atheism, rather than state neutrality towards spirituality was in place. What good did it for them? Not a thing, to be honest. People who were not even allowed to perform their last rites at a funeral are now attending to their religious needs in churches, mosques, synagogues and buddhist temples. Let's look at the nation States in Europe and across Eurasia. Especially in Europe, religious sections of the populations are in decline, even though this is mostly due to the nationalist revolutions, governments and etc. today's decline is mostly due to something else than nationalism, the destructive idea of cosmopolitan selfishness can be attributed to the recent fall in not only religious, but also national sensitivities in Europe.

My take is this. I'll be happy to answer your questions, and criticisms.
Feel free to promote alternative solutions on how secular thought can be promoted amongst people.

[Tobie]

Nationalism, in itself, is the opposite pole of two things: monarchism and theocratic rule.

Nationalism is not necessarily the polar opposite of monarchism. In some cases, such as the Italian Unification, it helped nationalism along on its way.

If you support separate nations for separate peoples, do you support the Kurdish Independence movement?

[Reforged]

We've yet to discover a system that accounts completely and indefinitely for the needs and happiness of its people at the same time as preventing sabotage by human nature.
Fact.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Nationalism, in itself, is the opposite pole of two things: monarchism and theocratic rule.

Nationalism is not necessarily the polar opposite of monarchism. In some cases, such as the Italian Unification, it helped nationalism along on its way.

If you support separate nations for separate peoples, do you support the Kurdish Independence movement?

Indeed, but it still puts an emphasis on being of the *same* people, the goal was national unification. In that case, look at Greece. Nationalism had paved the way for a revolt against the Ottoman empire, but they still wanted to be ruled by someone of noble blood, so they asked the western nations for a king. However the nationalists within the ruling body, the parliament still conflicted with the King on many terms, particularly those aligned with Venizelos.

For Kurdish independence I can say as much as this: I would not oppose their national independence if it did not conflict with out national goals.
However, I know that their independence is for now, not possible.
If they seek independence outside of the borders of what I consider to be a part of the lands of Turan, I would not oppose them, but supporting them would certainly put me at odds with someone else.

We've yet to discover a system that accounts completely and indefinitely for the needs and happiness of its people at the same time as preventing sabotage by human nature.
Fact.

Well, I think nationalism is a suitable alternative, as it unites people by common tongue, ethnicity and culture.
Sabotage by human nature can be dealth through laws.

[Tobie]

For Kurdish independence I can say as much as this: I would not oppose their national independence if it did not conflict with out national goals.
However, I know that their independence is for now, not possible.

How does Kurdish independence conflict with Turkish goals?

If they seek independence outside of the borders of what I consider to be a part of the lands of Turan, I would not oppose them, but supporting them would certainly put me at odds with someone else.

Turan is basically Central Asia. Central Asia does not contain Kurdistan, and neither does Anatolia.

Supporting them may put you at odds with someone else, but not supporting them makes you a hypocrite.

[kılıç_mehmet]

How does Kurdish independence conflict with Turkish goals?

How not, really? Their outrageous claims of territory, are one thing, but they even expect our support in the realisation of their dreams of independence.
As Gökbilge H. Nihal Atsız says,

Azınlıklar o ülkede, ancak, asıl sahiplerin milli haklarına baygı göstermek şartıyla adalet içinde yaşamak hakkına maliktirler ve hiçbir suretle, kendi özel ve milli şartlarını, çıkarlarını ileri süremezler. Hele memleketin asıl sahiplerinin hak ve çıkarları aleyhinde hiçbir dilekte bulunamazlar. Bu takdirde vatana ihanet etmiş olurlar.

Translation:

Minorities possess the right to live in a country on the condition of respecting the right of sovereignity of the majority, and may not produce their own national interests and push them in opposition to the national interests of the majority. In the case they do, they would be considered nothing more than traitors.

I think the words of Atsız are quite clear on this subject. Kurds have long been trying to push their own national interests in a country where they form a minority, all the while travelling the country at will, buying property, installing businesses, taking advantage of the benefits of living in this country, they also act against the country by means of terrorism. This is in direct conflict with our own national goals, not to mention it threatens the lives of Turks. If they do not wish to live under our rule, they can go and live in Northern Iraq, which has won it's autonomy by taking advantage of the US occupation. Unless we are invaded and subjugated by another country, the Kurds shall not receive autonomy, let alone independence.

Turan is basically Central Asia. Central Asia does not contain Kurdistan, and neither does Anatolia.

This is true if you take in consideration for which the name was originally used. However, I'm talking of a political concept, which was founded by illustrious people like Yusuf Akçura, Ziya Gökalp and others. Through their views, I view the lands of Turan as any piece of land on which Turks and other Turanic peoples have a major presence. So, Anatolia is very much a piece of Turan, just like the Altai mountain range.

Supporting them may put you at odds with someone else, but not supporting them makes you a hypocrite.

Hypocrite? Certainly not. No nation is responsible for the national goals of another nation.
I can freely choose which nation I wish to support and which nation I don't. Kurds certainly do not support our national goals. In fact, they try to undermine them, because as long as a strong Turkish national consciousness exists, they will never reach their dreams of a *greater Kurdistan*, another "greater X" type of ideal, which saw it's end with the death of the Greek Megali Idea.

[Tobie]

So its OK for you to want a pan-turk nation, but completely ridiculous for the Kurds to want a nation where they have lived for centuries? Doesn't sound hypocritical at all.

[kılıç_mehmet]

So its OK for you to want a pan-turk nation, but completely ridiculous for the Kurds to want a nation where they have lived for centuries? Doesn't sound hypocritical at all.

What comes to me as ridiculous is that they want land from us, the Turks, to do it. We do not want land from anybody. We only want what is rightfully ours. Kurds request what was never theirs in the first place.
Besides, kurds are relative newcomers into Anatolia, they were introduced by Alp Arslan, and finally settled in by Yavuz Sultan Selim Han, where previously two other Turkoman beyliks stood.

[Tobie]

So its OK for you to want a pan-turk nation, but completely ridiculous for the Kurds to want a nation where they have lived for centuries? Doesn't sound hypocritical at all.

What comes to me as ridiculous is that they want land from us, the Turks, to do it. We do not want land from anybody. We only want what is rightfully ours. Kurds request what was never theirs in the first place.
Besides, kurds are relative newcomers into Anatolia, they were introduced by Alp Arslan, and finally settled in by Yavuz Sultan Selim Han, where previously two other Turkoman beyliks stood.

The Kurds, and their ancestors, have been in the middle east longer than the Turks. The Kurds have been there since at least the 9th Century C.E, in places like Al-Mawsil, whereas Turks didn't come to the area till the early 11th Century C.E.

The Turks originate from central Asia, or Turan as you call it, and the Kurds have a range of ancestors including Medes and various Mesopotamian peoples. They have as much of a right to this land as you do.

Also, very little of the land they claim is in Anatolia, with most of it being in Mesopotamia.

There's a surprising amount of Turks living in Germany. Are you going claim that as part of Turan aswell?

[frankiej]

Meh, I don't see land as something that someone can really own...