Erdoğan et al rediscover Turkish nationalism

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

An article by BURAK BEKDİL

Hurriyet Daily News

In the early years of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s governance, there were basically two schools of thought in Western capitals, including rival ones in Turkey’s vicinity, regarding the prime minister’s ideology on nationalism. One group, mentally aged between 12 and 16 and featuring an average IQ of below 40, argued that Mr. Erdoğan would finally ruin Turkey’s persistent and proud nationalism which had often caused headaches in foreign capitals. The other group maintained that Mr. Erdoğan’s ideology was no less nationalistic than the “deep state’s,” but was just not as equally visible. After several years, the “junior” group has admitted defeat.

I came to this European capital for plenty of good reasons, namely a mystical stop-over before another journey takes me to even more mystical cities by the ocean; loud baroque music at the bar Santo Spirito; a shot of Plomari at Ouzeri Ellas; skillfully ground coffee at Daniel Moser; the quiet streets which once witnessed underground Cold War activity; and… to act as a judge in the finale of a political bet between two old diplomat friends.

It was the infant days of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, “regime.” Most Western embassies were cabling reports telling their capitals that the AKP meant the demise of “dangerous Turkish nationalism.” G., a diplomat, cabled home the same since he firmly believed that (a) the AKP would fight the “deep state” which fed dangerous Turkish nationalism; (b) the AKP had an ideology that by nature went against nationalism (as it instead favored religious bonds over ethnic ones); (c) with the AKP in power, “dangerous Turkish nationalism” would be sterilized first before completely perishing; and (d) therefore, the AKP must be supported against the Turkish deep state by any country that feels threatened by the “dangerous Turkish nationalism.”

But the competing idea, as summarized by N., another diplomat, argued that (a) the AKP was no less “dangerously nationalistic” than the Turkish deep state but was successfully hiding its true colors; (b) the AKP would return to its blend of Islamist/Turkish nationalism at the earliest possibility once it no longer felt a need to hide it; and (c) the AKP’s fight against the “deep state” did not mean it was also fighting the “dangerous nationalism” boasted by the deep state.

During our “summit” for the finale and before I even attempted to act as the referee as agreed years earlier, G. admitted defeat but did not forget to use his compromise as a means to defy my age/IQ theory for his camp. “I would not have admitted I was wrong if I had been younger than 16 and had an IQ less than 40,” he reminded me as we raised our Prosecco glasses to the winner of the bet, N.

The AKP has never been at war with “dangerous Turkish nationalism.” It has been at war with the ultra-secularist establishment which often supported the “dangerous Turkish nationalism.” In rhetoric – but seldom in practice – the AKP stood up against the kind of nationalism the ultra-secularist establishment favored. But in fact it stood up against the establishment. That, understandably but wrongly, was perceived by some Westerners as the AKP’s fight against Turkish nationalism. No, it was the AKP’s fight against the secularist establishment.

With the war against the secularist establishment now over, the AKP has no reason to mask the nationalist ethos which its political genes harbored. Remember, Turkey’s president and prime minister come from an ideology which in the early 1970s organized demonstrations asking the government to ban rock music because “rock music would lead to the degeneration of the Turkish nation.” Lest they forget.

Mr. Erdoğan et al. smartly thought that they could fool the Westerners aged between 12 and 16 and with an average IQ less than 40 (sorry, G!) and win their support by presenting their fight against the secularists as a fight against the secularists’ nationalism. They did well. They privately told the generals to go ahead with whatever military plan around Turkey’s borders could have been perceived by the West as “yet another nationalistic action.” They privately told the Western capitals that it was the military acting on its own and that the poor government was helpless to stop these Kemalist/nationalist barbarians.

Overflights on the Aegean? Oh, it’s the generals! We tell them to stop but they never listen to us. An incursion into northern Iraq? Ah, how we wanted to stop the military but these generals won’t listen to us. Armaments? God, the generals want to buy all the weapons available on the world’s arms market. And we cannot stop them!

Of course, the truth is oceans away from that smart cheating. The truth is that the prime minister knows several months in advance what training flights the Turkish fighters will make over which Greek island and precisely at what time and which day. The truth is that the prime minister – and his ministers and some other important people – know in every detail which weapon systems are to be purchased. The truth is that the defense minister proudly announces plans for the design, development and manufacturing of Turkey’s first “national fighter jet” along with its first “national battle tank.”

This is precisely why this columnist wished the Armenian protocols good luck, but cautioned that they would fail; why this columnist supported the reunification of Cyprus but predicted that Mr. Erdoğan was a fake peacemaker. As he has consolidated power and felt confident that he won his war against the “establishment” he would rediscover his nationalist self. Which he did… Mr. Erdoğan had a problem with the establishment. He did not have a problem with the establishment’s nationalist ideology. The establishment has gone. The ideology remains under Mr. Erdoğan’s auspices.

Meanwhile, Mr. Erdoğan’s chief negotiator with the EU, State Minister Egemen Bağış, proposed a brilliant idea a few months ago for a solution to the Cyprus problem. According to Minister Bağış’s Sistine Chapel proposal inspired by the Vatican rules for electing the Pope, the Turkish, Greek, and Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders are to be shut down in a room to agree on a reunification plan for the divided island and won’t be let out until they do so.

I think this is the best idea Mr. Bağış has ever proposed. It really is a win-win idea! I agree, and hope that the Greeks, Turks and Turkish and Greek Cypriots should agree to it, too. It would be something to celebrate if the very important Turks, Greeks, and Turkish and Greek Cypriots agreed on a solution. It would be equally wonderful if they didn’t.



Gaza strip isolation.

Obama and McCain: Pawns of the Global Elite?

By Patrick Wood
August 5, 2008

An interesting article about how leadership plays with the hopes of people all around the globe!

Will it matter if Obama or McCain are elected in November? Hardly.

Both are rigidly backed by important members of the Trilateral Commission who hijacked the Executive Branch of the U.S. government starting in 1976 with the election of Jimmy Carter.

In Obama’s case, Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Commission in 1973) is emerging as his principal advisor on foreign policy. Ex-Fed Chairman Paul Volker has made a once-in-a-lifetime, glowing endorsement of Obama. Madelyn Albright is seen sitting next to Obama in several conferences. Shoot, even Jimmy Carter himself endorses Obama. All are top members of the Commission.

John McCain is being supported by several Trilateral Commission giants including: Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig. All of these are ex-Secretaries of State who issued a joint endorsement of McCain early-on in his campaign.

And, unless Obama shoots both of his own feet (or…?) before the general presidential election in November, he is most likely to be the next president of the United States.

You would think that Americans would want to know who the “special interests” are that are embodied by this Trilateral Commission, and what they intend to do or not do with America.

What is the Trilateral Commission?

The Trilateral Commission was founded by the persistent maneuvering of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973. Rockefeller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of many major multinational corporations and “endowment funds” and had long been a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Brzezinski, a brilliant prognosticator of one-world idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of several books that have served as “policy guidelines” for the Trilateral Commission.

Brzezinski served as the Commission’s first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The initial Commission membership was approximately three hundred, with roughly one hundred each from Europe, Japan and North America. Membership was also roughly divided between academics, politicians and corporate magnates; these included international bankers, leaders of prominent labor unions and corporate directors of media giants.

The word commission was puzzling since it is usually associated with instrumentalities set up by governments. It seemed out of place with a so-called private group unless we could determine that it really was an arm of a government – an unseen government, different from the visible government in Washington. European and Japanese involvement indicated a world government rather than a national government. We hoped that the concept of a sub-rosa world government was just wishful thinking on the part of the Trilateral Commissioners. The facts, however, lined up quite pessimistically.

If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the “task force” assembled to assault the beachheads. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.

Jimmy Carter: The first Trilateral president

President James Earl Carter, the country politician who promised, “I will never lie to you,” was chosen to join the Commission by Brzezinski in 1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who first identified Carter as presidential timber, and subsequently educated him in economics, foreign policy, and the ins-and-outs of world politics. Upon Carter’s election, Brzezinski was appointed assistant to the president for national security matters. Commonly, he was called the head of the National Security Council because he answered only to the president – some said Brzezinski held the second most powerful position in the U.S.

Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the Commission. (If you are trying to calculate the odds of three virtually unknown men, out of over sixty Commissioners from the U.S., capturing the three most powerful positions in the land, don’t bother. Your calculations will be meaningless.)

On January 7, 1977 Time Magazine, whose editor-in-chief, Hedley Donovan was a powerful Trilateral, named President Carter “Man of the Year.” The sixteen-page article in that issue not only failed to mention Carter’s connection with the Commission but also stated the following:

“As he searched for Cabinet appointees, Carter seemed at times hesitant and frustrated disconcertingly out of character. His lack of ties to Washington and the Party Establishment – qualities that helped raise him to the White House – carry potential dangers. He does not know the Federal Government or the pressures it creates. He does not really know the politicians whom he will need to help him run the country.”

Was this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate or was it deliberately misleading? By December 25, 1976 – two weeks before the Time article appeared – Carter had already chosen his cabinet. Three of his cabinet members – Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and Harold Brown – were Trilateral Commissioners; and the other non-Commission members were not unsympathetic to Commission objectives and operations. In addition, Carter had appointed another fourteen Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:

* C. Fred Bergsten (Under Secretary of Treasury)
* James Schlesinger (Secretary of Energy)
* Elliot Richardson (Delegate to Law of the Sea)
* Leonard Woodcock (Chief envoy to China)
* Andrew Young (Ambassador to the United Nations).

As of 25 December 1976, therefore, there were nineteen Trilaterals, including Carter and Mondale, holding tremendous political power. These presidential appointees represented almost one-third of the Trilateral Commission members from the United States. The odds of that happening “by chance” are beyond calculation!

Realities of the New World Order

In 1972, Brzezinski’s wrote that “nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
The late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) was one of a very few people who understood what Brzezinski was alluding to, when he issued a clear and precise warning in his 1979 book, With No Apologies:

“The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual and

Trilateral Entrenchment: 1980-2008

Every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral Commission representation through the President or Vice-President, or both! George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Dick Cheney are all members.

In turn, these have appointed their Trilateral cronies to top positions in their Administrations.

For instance, six out of seven World Bank presidents have been members of the Commission. Eight out of ten USTR’s (U.S. Trade Representative) have been members.

Secretaries of State include Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Alexander Haig, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. Yep, all members of the Trilateral Commission.

Follow the money, follow the power

You decide which is scarier: Obama and Brzezinski or McCain and Henry Kissinger?

Either way, Americans will continue to lose…

Every major crisis we face today is directly attributable to policies put forth and executed by members of this Trilateral Commission: Banking/lending/mortgage crisis, energy/gas price crisis, food/shortage/price crisis.

In addition, in the last fifteen to twenty years we have lost of millions of prime manufacturing jobs to China, India and Mexico. Our prime assets are being purchased by sovereign wealth funds and foreign investors. Our currency has all but been destroyed throughout the world.

Remember Brzezinski’s vision that “international banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”?

Well, that’s been true enough. But, for all their acting and planning at the expense of our own prosperity and Sovereignty, who wants or needs more of the same under Obama or McCain? With friends like this, who needs enemies?

For several Presidential elections now, this writer has voted according to the philosophy of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Never again!

A vote for either Obama or McCain is a vote for the complete destruction of America!

As a result of OBAMANIA;

Did YOU vote for OBAMA?

*Does not really matter; We’re waiting for a change, right?

Let’s see…

  1. Is financial crisis a hoax?
  2. Who is Mr Dow Jones?
  3. Why everybody leans on banks?
  4. Why we have bank economies?
  5. Why Israeli economy isn’t ” infected ” ?
  6. Why Russia is a superpower out of nothing?
  7. How does geopolicy work?
  8. Who’s gonna pay me tomorrow?
  9. Why don’t they all go to hell?


A country-friend of Amerika (amerikan policy) must

  1. provide amerikan advantages at any cost.
  2. establish amerikan outposts in its own territory.
  3. buy only amerikan products (from panties to energy and military equipment).
  4. leave Amerika take care of its policy.
  5. show loyalty to Uncle Sam.
  6. give h*** to Uncle Sam.


Get ready to face the consequences.

Ameri*k*a is the german spelling of the word just to show this fascist policy.

No doubt…

Yes indeed…