The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
Is Turkey Lost to the West?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Not long ago, a democratizing Turkey, with the second-largest army in NATO, appeared on track to join the European Union.

That’s not likely now, or perhaps ever.

Last week, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan compared Angela Merkel’s Germany to Hitler’s, said the Netherlands was full of “Nazi remnants” and “fascists,” and suggested the Dutch ambassador go home.

What precipitated Erdogan’s outbursts?

City officials in Germany refused to let him campaign in Turkish immigrant communities on behalf of an April 16 referendum proposal to augment his powers.

When the Netherlands denied Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu landing rights, he exploded, saying: “The Netherlands … are reminiscent of the Europe of World War II. The same racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.”

When Turkey’s family and social policies minister, Betul Sayan Kaya, drove from Germany to Rotterdam to campaign, Dutch police blocked her from entering the Turkish consulate and escorted her back to Germany.

Liberal Europeans see Erdogan’s referendum as a power grab by an unpredictable and volatile ruler who has fired 100,000 civil servants and jailed 40,000 Turks after last summer’s attempted coup, and is converting his country into a dictatorship.

This crisis was tailor-made for Geert Wilders, the anti-EU, anti-Muslim Dutch nationalist who is on the ballot in Wednesday’s Dutch general election.

Claiming credit for the tough stance of conservative Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Wilders tweeted: “I am telling all Turks in the Netherlands that agree with Erdogan: GO to Turkey and NEVER come back!”

“Wilders is a racist, fascist Nazi,” replied Cavusoglu.

Wilders had been fading from his front-runner position, but this episode may have brought him back. While no major Dutch party would join a government led by Wilders, if he runs first in the election March 15, the shock to Europe would be tremendous.

Rutte, however, who dominated the media through the weekend confrontation with the Turks, could be the beneficiary, as a resurgent nationalism pulls all parties toward the right.

All Europe now seems to be piling on the Turks. Danes, Swedes and Swiss are taking Europe’s side against Erdogan.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the populist National Front in France, called on the socialist regime to deny Turkish leaders permission to campaign in Turkish communities. She was echoed by conservative party candidate Francois Fillon, whose once-bright hopes for the presidency all but collapsed after it was learned his wife and children had held do-nothing jobs on the government payroll.

On April 23 comes the first round of the French elections. And one outcome appears predictable. Neither of the major parties — the socialists of President Francois Hollande or the Republicans of ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy — may make it into the May 7 finals.

Le Pen, the anti-EU populist who would lift sanctions on Putin’s Russia, is running even with 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron, a socialist running as the independent leader of a new movement.

Should Le Pen run first in April, the shock to Europe would be far greater than when her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, made the finals in 2002.

At the end of 2017, neither Wilders nor Le Pen is likely to be in power, but the forces driving their candidacies are growing stronger.

Foremost among these is the gnawing ethnonational fear across Europe that the migration from the South — Maghreb, the Middle East and the sub-Sahara — is unstoppable and will eventually swamp the countries, cultures and civilization of Europe and the West.

ORDER IT NOW

The ugly and brutal diplomatic confrontation with Turkey may make things worse, as the Turks, after generous payments from Germany, have kept Syrian civil war refugees from crossing its borders into Europe. Should Ankara open the gates, a new immigration crisis could engulf Europe this spring and summer.

Other ethnonational crises are brewing in a familiar place, the Balkans, among the successor states born of the 1990s breakup of Yugoslavia.

In Bosnia, secessionists seek to pull the Serb Republic away from Sarajevo toward Belgrade. The Albanian minority in Macedonia is denouncing political discrimination. The Serbs left behind after Kosovo broke loose in 1999, thanks to 78 days of U.S. bombing of Serbia, have never been reconciled to their fate.

Montenegro has charged Russia with backing an attempted coup late last year to prevent the tiny nation from joining NATO.

The Financial Times sees Vladimir Putin’s hand in what is going on in the Western Balkans, where World War I was ignited with the June 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke in Sarajevo.

The upshot of all this:

Turkey, a powerful and reliable ally of the U.S. through the Cold War, appears to be coming unmoored from Europe and the West, and is becoming increasingly sectarian, autocratic and nationalistic.

While anti-immigrant and anti-EU parties across Europe may not take power anywhere in 2017, theirs is now a permanent and growing presence, leeching away support from centrist parties left and right.

With Russia’s deepening ties to populist and nationalist parties across Europe, from Paris to Istanbul, Vlad is back in the game.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: European Right, Turkey 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Jason Liu says:

    It all seems like pointless infighting.

    Wilders and Erdogan are both right-wing nationalists. In the world’s current state, they should be allies against the liberal world order. So what if the other guy is a Muslim? I’ll take a like-minded Muslim over an egalitarian any day.

    The large Muslim population within the Netherlands is a separate problem, which is manifestation of pluralism (promoted by egalitarians). The Dutch right is wrong is confusing tribalism with ideology, especially when nationalism ideology automatically leads to homogeneity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    Except that one uses Islam as an organising principle, the other uses anti-Islamic feeling. Both of them are right-wingers (I would say fascist, certainly in Erdogan's case) but that hardly suggests they can work together directly, although in a way they are. One of the few left-leaning newspapers in Turkey comments in a headline, "Right helps right - freedom and fraternity lose".
    , @Maciano
    No. Erdogan is not just a nationalist, he’s an islamist. And he’s on the offence. Wilders is defending his own turf -- not just him, but all of Dutch politics is against Erdogan. This isn’t infighting. Erdogan is the enemy. And he’s using Turkish immigrants etnonationalism against the Netherlands. Very ungrateful people.

    We can’t let this stuff slide, and we won’t. Turkey will pay a big prize for stepping on our turf. Turkey should be pushed out of NATO and out of EU candidacy.
    , @German_reader
    No, you're wrong. Erdogan is an expansionist who harbours hostile intentions against his neighbours and probably would like to Islamicize Europe. He's a real megalomaniac with despotic tendencies. Wilders merely wants to keep the Netherlands recognizably Dutch/European/Western, his nationalism is of a defensive kind. There's no common ground here.
    , @Cato
    You are right. Erdogan is first and foremost a nationalist, just as all of the great Turkish leaders have been nationalists, following the example of Kemal Ataturk. Erdogan refused to let George W Bush have a Turkish front in the invasion of Iraq--a stance that might have garnered admiration among peace-loving people throughout the world, had it not been obscured and vilified by the neocon-dominated, fake-news MSM. Erdogan rejected Bush's demands because he is a Turkish nationalist, and cannot bear to see his country used by America. His extremely high popularity is almost entirely due to his ardent nationalism, the same source of popularity tapped by Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump.

    Granted, Erdogan is religious, and wishes to bring Islam more into the fabric of the country, but his kind of religiosity is much more like the Boy Scouts' "God and Country", than the fanatical medievalism of ISIS and the Wahabis.
    , @gwynedd1
    Erdogan supports Turkish ethno nationalism in other states like the Netherlands. So that hardly makes him a compadre.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/is-turkey-lost-to-the-west/#comment-1799230
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Although I generally agree with Patrick Buchanan, I think this article has two flaws.

    First, sort of like the 1950s debate in the U.S. over “who lost China,” a “loss” of Turkey somehow presumes it was “ours” to lose. Turkey, whether under the Ottomans, or under Erdogan, was always a highly problematic “Western” country. It’s now reverting to its Islamic Ottoman roots; the secular regime developed Kemal Ataturk will be seen as a relatively brief anomaly.

    Secondly, Pat sort of assumes Vladimir Putin is behind the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe. I’ve never seen any evidence of that. From what I’ve seen and read, the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe see in Russia an inspiration of sorts; a government that actually likes Russians instead of despising its own people, as it is increasingly obvious many Western European and North American elites do. Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.
     
    I am sure Vladmir Putin had a hand in writing this sentence. Ha Ha. That varmint is every where.

    But seriously, I think every one is talking about the symptoms and not the root cause of all these problems. This sickness is caused by the US and the Western governments because of their relentless assault on the Middle East. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry of the western European countries is sending his troops or planes to attack in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. They are all sovereign nations. What happens there is none of our business. We need to stop taking care of Israel and Saudi Arabia's worries. If they can't get along with their neighbors it is not our problem.

    Erdogan has higher aspirations of starting his own caliphate. His power grab has only one objective. He wants to be the supreme leader of the Sunni Muslim world. That is why the recent coup was staged; to purge the military, courts, and academics of his possible opponents, so he has a clear sailing when he does declare his caliphate.

    Moral of the story; get out of the Middle East, stop selling weapons to them and live peacefully and happily thereafter.
    , @Art
    Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.

    Is Putin the only real white man in power - is he the only one who sees the writing on the wall - is he the only one making the right decisions for his people?

    Trump says "America First" but it looks like it is "Israel First." Is he going to break up Syria as the Jews want, or is he going to help Putin defeat Sunni ISIS and maintain one state of Syria?

    Peace --- Art
    , @Miro23
    I'm not sure about the transient nature of Ataturk. A large section of Turks aspire to be Western, and for centuries prior to the Islamic invasion, Constantinople (Istambul) was the centre of the Byzantine Christian Eastern Orthodox world.

    Apart from that I agree completely about European ethnonationalism and Putin.

    Secondly, Pat sort of assumes Vladimir Putin is behind the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe. I’ve never seen any evidence of that. From what I’ve seen and read, the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe see in Russia an inspiration of sorts; a government that actually likes Russians instead of despising its own people, as it is increasingly obvious many Western European and North American elites do. Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.
     
  3. MEexpert says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Although I generally agree with Patrick Buchanan, I think this article has two flaws.

    First, sort of like the 1950s debate in the U.S. over "who lost China," a "loss" of Turkey somehow presumes it was "ours" to lose. Turkey, whether under the Ottomans, or under Erdogan, was always a highly problematic "Western" country. It's now reverting to its Islamic Ottoman roots; the secular regime developed Kemal Ataturk will be seen as a relatively brief anomaly.

    Secondly, Pat sort of assumes Vladimir Putin is behind the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe. I've never seen any evidence of that. From what I've seen and read, the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe see in Russia an inspiration of sorts; a government that actually likes Russians instead of despising its own people, as it is increasingly obvious many Western European and North American elites do. Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.

    Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.

    I am sure Vladmir Putin had a hand in writing this sentence. Ha Ha. That varmint is every where.

    But seriously, I think every one is talking about the symptoms and not the root cause of all these problems. This sickness is caused by the US and the Western governments because of their relentless assault on the Middle East. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry of the western European countries is sending his troops or planes to attack in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. They are all sovereign nations. What happens there is none of our business. We need to stop taking care of Israel and Saudi Arabia’s worries. If they can’t get along with their neighbors it is not our problem.

    Erdogan has higher aspirations of starting his own caliphate. His power grab has only one objective. He wants to be the supreme leader of the Sunni Muslim world. That is why the recent coup was staged; to purge the military, courts, and academics of his possible opponents, so he has a clear sailing when he does declare his caliphate.

    Moral of the story; get out of the Middle East, stop selling weapons to them and live peacefully and happily thereafter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey MEexpert,

    They are all sovereign nations. What happens there is none of our business. ... If they can’t get along with their neighbors it is not our problem.
     
    Yeah - the way people go on about things on these forums you'd think Turkey or Egypt are the ones droning weddings in Calais or Hamburg.

    Don't invade, don't invite - pretty elementary.

    Erdogan has higher aspirations of starting his own caliphate. His power grab has only one objective. He wants to be the supreme leader of the Sunni Muslim world.
     
    You and I both know that ship has likely sailed far into the distance - this probably isn't happening until the Mahdi (ra) comes around. I doubt the other nations will simply give up their little fiefdoms for the suzerainty to the Turks. The current events are definitely a rollback of Kemalism which - as DH stated - was a relatively short-lived anomaly; I mean exiling the Shaykh ul-Islam Mustafa Sabri (ra) - seriously??? It'll be very, very interesting if they drop Latin script for reversion to Arabic or Persian letters - that would be a massive signal of where Turkey feels its future lies.

    At this point, I don't think much more will be achieved than a workable EU/NATO-style economic/military international framework (something with far more teeth than the OIC). Far more internal cooperation and development is required so that these on-again off-again sanctions don't tank their economies and they could probably cut their military budgets in half if they didn't have to worry about so many soldiers facing off against each other over shared borders.

    Moral of the story; get out of the Middle East, stop selling weapons to them and live peacefully and happily thereafter.
     
    Amen - though how many body bags on both sides will be needed to figure this out is anybody's guess.

    Peace.
  4. @Jason Liu
    It all seems like pointless infighting.

    Wilders and Erdogan are both right-wing nationalists. In the world's current state, they should be allies against the liberal world order. So what if the other guy is a Muslim? I'll take a like-minded Muslim over an egalitarian any day.

    The large Muslim population within the Netherlands is a separate problem, which is manifestation of pluralism (promoted by egalitarians). The Dutch right is wrong is confusing tribalism with ideology, especially when nationalism ideology automatically leads to homogeneity.

    Except that one uses Islam as an organising principle, the other uses anti-Islamic feeling. Both of them are right-wingers (I would say fascist, certainly in Erdogan’s case) but that hardly suggests they can work together directly, although in a way they are. One of the few left-leaning newspapers in Turkey comments in a headline, “Right helps right – freedom and fraternity lose”.

    Read More
  5. https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/03/13/protestors-burn-french-flag-mistaking-dutch-flag-samsun/

    The ignorance inseparable from fascism. Although Turkish fascists might not care which “infidel” flag they’re burning, even if they knew the difference… On Turkish NTV, I’ve been watching a Turkish youth in Rotterdam talking about the beating he got from the Dutch police. Back in Istanbul, the cops don’t go easy with the truncheons and the riot gas either…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    You clearly do not know the definition of 'fascist / fascism'.

    "If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say."

    , @Altai
    To be fair, has anyone confirmed they didn't realise or they just had a French flag but no Dutch flag and thought, fuck it, hold it sideways and it'll still work?

    You shouldn't mistake for ignorance what might be better explained by laziness or early shop closing hours.
    , @Fidelios Automata
    Ha, reminds me of redneck idiots in the US who attack Sikhs mistaking them for Muslims.
  6. Maciano says:
    @Jason Liu
    It all seems like pointless infighting.

    Wilders and Erdogan are both right-wing nationalists. In the world's current state, they should be allies against the liberal world order. So what if the other guy is a Muslim? I'll take a like-minded Muslim over an egalitarian any day.

    The large Muslim population within the Netherlands is a separate problem, which is manifestation of pluralism (promoted by egalitarians). The Dutch right is wrong is confusing tribalism with ideology, especially when nationalism ideology automatically leads to homogeneity.

    No. Erdogan is not just a nationalist, he’s an islamist. And he’s on the offence. Wilders is defending his own turf — not just him, but all of Dutch politics is against Erdogan. This isn’t infighting. Erdogan is the enemy. And he’s using Turkish immigrants etnonationalism against the Netherlands. Very ungrateful people.

    We can’t let this stuff slide, and we won’t. Turkey will pay a big prize for stepping on our turf. Turkey should be pushed out of NATO and out of EU candidacy.

    Read More
  7. polistra says:

    Turkey was never ‘moored’ to the West. It has always defended its own interests, aligning with Europe or US when advantageous, separating when it saw more advantage that way.

    The relatively new element here is the Turkey-Russia alliance, since Turkey and Russia are traditionally adversaries.

    Read More
  8. Turkey was never part of the west. Mustafa Kemal tried to make Turkey a western country, but all he changed was the superficial wrapping of Turkish society. The Islamist heart was never changed, and Turkey is reverting.

    The idea that we can get out of the ME, and quit selling weapons there and we’ll live happily ever after is a fairy tale. There are others who will sell them weapons, and they will come boiling out of their countries to offer the rest of the world the choice – the Koran or the Sword. If you really think that people holding an ideology like Muhammad’s will leave the rest of the world at peace, you are living in a dream world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    Getting out of the Middle is necessary but not sufficient:
    1. Stop bombing Muslim countries
    2. Stop supporting Muslim theocracies
    3. Stop allowing Muslim immigration.
    4. Make this perfectly clear to the Islamist fanatics: leave us alone or face annihilation.
    , @bluedog
    I suppose you mean they are going to mount their camels or their ass's which ever they prefer and swim the ocean blue to get here,as far as selling weapons its just about the only thing we have left to sell except that old worn out line of b.s. that we are exporting democracy mom's apple pie and home and hearth and all the rest of it...
    , @kemerd
    No Sir, you are mistaken.

    Turkey has a long history of democratisation (about 200 years), and turkish society is secular and that is has always been so. Even the ottoman dynasty has never ruled by the Islam as it is understood today.

    In fact, Erdogan and his ilk and their understanding of islam is an anomaly for Turkey. And there is every indication that his rule and islamisation (sunni salafism, muslim brotherhood) of Turkey is another botched NATO operation to contain Turkish left which was rising steadily since 1950s and keep the country anchored to US interests. Erdogan himself knows this and he also knows that his masters has decided to let him go, that is probably the reason why is is so erratic and making overtures to Russia as if he wanted to change sides.

    In reality, the turkish ruling elite is anchored to the west and western values for at least 200 years, and they have no intention to change that. They just wanted a little bit of islam to contain the masses but Erdogan went one step too far in islamisation. The only reason Erdogan is still in place is that they want to replace him with a bit better optics and loyal but do not want to ruin the islamisation project that they nurtured for at least 50 years.

  9. It’s impossible for any Muslim country to modernize, in a western sense, for very long. Eventually all revert to religious fanaticism and authoritarianism. There’s nothing unusual about what Erdogan is doing. In fact, it is Ataturk that was the anomaly, not he. Expect the same thing to happen in Dubai eventually.

    Sooner or later, Europe is going to have to face the uncomfortable truth that they’re going to have to repatriate millions of rigidly nationalistic, increasingly religious Muslim Turks. This on top of all the “Syrians” that have shown up in the past couple of years.

    And eventually, if the west has any balls left, the discussion must begin of liberating once Christian Constantinople and western Turkey from Muslim rule.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anonym
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    Agreed. Thrace and Constantinople must eventually return to Europe.
  10. syd.bgd says:

    Enough is enough.

    Mr. Buchanan writes : “The Serbs left behind after Kosovo broke loose in 1999, thanks to 78 days of U.S. bombing of Serbia, have never been reconciled to their fate.”

    Would you, Mr. Buchanan, reconcile to such a fate of any American:

    http://www.eparhija-prizren.com/en/news/memoriam-eleven-years-march-pogrom-over-serbian-orthodox-holy-sites-kosovo

    or this one:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/six-years-as-of-march-pogrom-against-serbs-in-kosovo/18178

    And I’m not even mentioning these 150.000 that had to run for their lives with undefeated Serbian army units as US army was rolling in, enabling massive crimes against Serb civilians. There are people still living ghettoed, under protection of barbed wire and international military on less than few hundreds sq meters, like in Orahovac.

    There’s no much satisfaction for us seeing US Christians persecuted, for example (http://adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/amy-lynn-photography-studio-v.-city-of-madison?_ga=1.207201683.1269930612.1489357918) for what they are and for what they stand for almost like Serbs in that moslem dominated Clintonesque drugs/sex slaves/human spare parts mafia run entity with the highest % of AQ/ISIS volunteers in Europe. We suffer the same fate under our (s)elected governments, made somewhere in USA. But do not count on us like in WW2 to save asses of your pilots after “allied” bombing of what was left of our cities, including Belgrade, after Nazi plunder. It’s over: Americans are not to be trusted, not more, not ever again.
    Why?

    I quote from link B: “Representatives of the international community evaluated at the time that the ethnically-based violence against the Serbs in Kosovo had been planned in advance and well orchestrated, but it turned out that more than 20,000 members of international forces were not ready, or did not want to stop or prevent the pogrom.”
    So, US government agencies were surprised that organized pogrom was brewing around Bondsteel base? C’mon. Four year later USA were the first to recognize that self-declared independent state.

    USA can install whatever government it wants from that medieval fortress they’ve recently built on hill overlooking Belgrade but we will never forget and never forgive. And we are just one among many nations around.

    Dig it, Mr. Buchanan?

    Read More
  11. Don’t be a one-trick pony, Patrick: the word, these days, is not ‘nationalism’ but ‘sovereignism‘.

    As for Turkey, I think it’s fine to forbid a foreign leader to campaign on your territory, but to refuse landing of the foreign minister’s plane? That seems a bit too much.

    Read More
  12. Wally says:
    @Uebersetzer
    https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/03/13/protestors-burn-french-flag-mistaking-dutch-flag-samsun/

    The ignorance inseparable from fascism. Although Turkish fascists might not care which "infidel" flag they're burning, even if they knew the difference... On Turkish NTV, I've been watching a Turkish youth in Rotterdam talking about the beating he got from the Dutch police. Back in Istanbul, the cops don't go easy with the truncheons and the riot gas either...

    You clearly do not know the definition of ‘fascist / fascism’.

    “If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    And you do know the definition? Please provide it.
    , @Uebersetzer
    Erdogan and the political system he heads tick many fascist boxes. His attacks on fascism in Europe have more than a touch of the self-referential about them.
    1. Ultra-nationalism, although this is generally a trait of the Turkish body politic.
    2. Militarism - again a trait that was around before him but one he certainly continues.
    3. Appeals to the "national will" (Turkish: milli irade), which he himself embodies by implication, interesting because Hitler and Mussolini tended to make equivalent appeals in their speeches. Watch an Erdogan speech and Hit and Muss will definitely come to mind.
    4. Dictatorial behaviour - closing down TV stations and newspapers at the stroke of a pen, filling the prisons with his opponents.
    5. Us versus them - Erdogan has no sense that people are opposed to him because of any good or even neutral reason. They must be "foreign focused" (fascists are of course prone to xenophobia) , or they must be terrorists etc. The MHP party which he has been cultivating to gain support for "Yes" in the referendum is linked to the Grey Wolves and is in fact Turkey's classically fascist party. It is rather ironic to see obvious Grey Wolves (recognisible by their flags and hand signals) protesting against European fascism.
    6. Armenian genocide denial - this is an ongoing trait of Turkey's body politic and Erdogan has continued it.
    Building on No.1 - Turkish politics and society possess this chauvinist underbelly, particularly visible if you know the language. And this was even the case before Erdogan came to particular prominence. In the 1990s, to give a trivial example, the national football team defeated the Hungarian national team and the country's newspapers proclaimed it was "a second Mohacs". Mohacs was an Ottoman victory in the 16th century in which the Hungarian king was killed and most of his country disappeared into the Ottoman Empire, with only a narrow western strip left which was dominated by Austria. These inflammatory newspaper headlines say a lot about Turkish ultra-chauvinism and neo-Ottomanism even in the 1990s, when the country seemed to be moving closer to EU membership than it is now.
  13. Altai says:
    @Uebersetzer
    https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/03/13/protestors-burn-french-flag-mistaking-dutch-flag-samsun/

    The ignorance inseparable from fascism. Although Turkish fascists might not care which "infidel" flag they're burning, even if they knew the difference... On Turkish NTV, I've been watching a Turkish youth in Rotterdam talking about the beating he got from the Dutch police. Back in Istanbul, the cops don't go easy with the truncheons and the riot gas either...

    To be fair, has anyone confirmed they didn’t realise or they just had a French flag but no Dutch flag and thought, fuck it, hold it sideways and it’ll still work?

    You shouldn’t mistake for ignorance what might be better explained by laziness or early shop closing hours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    It could be either. Frankly that section is apt to think Muslim foreigners are ayip (shameful) and non-Muslim foreigners are gavur (an abusive Turkish term - Byron entitled one of his poems or stories The Giaour, which is the same word with a different spelling). They might not know which flag it is, and care less.
  14. @Jason Liu
    It all seems like pointless infighting.

    Wilders and Erdogan are both right-wing nationalists. In the world's current state, they should be allies against the liberal world order. So what if the other guy is a Muslim? I'll take a like-minded Muslim over an egalitarian any day.

    The large Muslim population within the Netherlands is a separate problem, which is manifestation of pluralism (promoted by egalitarians). The Dutch right is wrong is confusing tribalism with ideology, especially when nationalism ideology automatically leads to homogeneity.

    No, you’re wrong. Erdogan is an expansionist who harbours hostile intentions against his neighbours and probably would like to Islamicize Europe. He’s a real megalomaniac with despotic tendencies. Wilders merely wants to keep the Netherlands recognizably Dutch/European/Western, his nationalism is of a defensive kind. There’s no common ground here.

    Read More
  15. @Quartermaster
    Turkey was never part of the west. Mustafa Kemal tried to make Turkey a western country, but all he changed was the superficial wrapping of Turkish society. The Islamist heart was never changed, and Turkey is reverting.

    The idea that we can get out of the ME, and quit selling weapons there and we'll live happily ever after is a fairy tale. There are others who will sell them weapons, and they will come boiling out of their countries to offer the rest of the world the choice - the Koran or the Sword. If you really think that people holding an ideology like Muhammad's will leave the rest of the world at peace, you are living in a dream world.

    Getting out of the Middle is necessary but not sufficient:
    1. Stop bombing Muslim countries
    2. Stop supporting Muslim theocracies
    3. Stop allowing Muslim immigration.
    4. Make this perfectly clear to the Islamist fanatics: leave us alone or face annihilation.

    Read More
  16. @Johnny Smoggins
    It's impossible for any Muslim country to modernize, in a western sense, for very long. Eventually all revert to religious fanaticism and authoritarianism. There's nothing unusual about what Erdogan is doing. In fact, it is Ataturk that was the anomaly, not he. Expect the same thing to happen in Dubai eventually.

    Sooner or later, Europe is going to have to face the uncomfortable truth that they're going to have to repatriate millions of rigidly nationalistic, increasingly religious Muslim Turks. This on top of all the "Syrians" that have shown up in the past couple of years.

    And eventually, if the west has any balls left, the discussion must begin of liberating once Christian Constantinople and western Turkey from Muslim rule.

    Agreed. Thrace and Constantinople must eventually return to Europe.

    Read More
  17. @Uebersetzer
    https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/03/13/protestors-burn-french-flag-mistaking-dutch-flag-samsun/

    The ignorance inseparable from fascism. Although Turkish fascists might not care which "infidel" flag they're burning, even if they knew the difference... On Turkish NTV, I've been watching a Turkish youth in Rotterdam talking about the beating he got from the Dutch police. Back in Istanbul, the cops don't go easy with the truncheons and the riot gas either...

    Ha, reminds me of redneck idiots in the US who attack Sikhs mistaking them for Muslims.

    Read More
  18. @syd.bgd
    Enough is enough.

    Mr. Buchanan writes : "The Serbs left behind after Kosovo broke loose in 1999, thanks to 78 days of U.S. bombing of Serbia, have never been reconciled to their fate."

    Would you, Mr. Buchanan, reconcile to such a fate of any American:
    http://www.eparhija-prizren.com/en/news/memoriam-eleven-years-march-pogrom-over-serbian-orthodox-holy-sites-kosovo
    or this one:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/six-years-as-of-march-pogrom-against-serbs-in-kosovo/18178

    And I'm not even mentioning these 150.000 that had to run for their lives with undefeated Serbian army units as US army was rolling in, enabling massive crimes against Serb civilians. There are people still living ghettoed, under protection of barbed wire and international military on less than few hundreds sq meters, like in Orahovac.

    There's no much satisfaction for us seeing US Christians persecuted, for example (http://adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/amy-lynn-photography-studio-v.-city-of-madison?_ga=1.207201683.1269930612.1489357918) for what they are and for what they stand for almost like Serbs in that moslem dominated Clintonesque drugs/sex slaves/human spare parts mafia run entity with the highest % of AQ/ISIS volunteers in Europe. We suffer the same fate under our (s)elected governments, made somewhere in USA. But do not count on us like in WW2 to save asses of your pilots after "allied" bombing of what was left of our cities, including Belgrade, after Nazi plunder. It's over: Americans are not to be trusted, not more, not ever again.
    Why?

    I quote from link B: "Representatives of the international community evaluated at the time that the ethnically-based violence against the Serbs in Kosovo had been planned in advance and well orchestrated, but it turned out that more than 20,000 members of international forces were not ready, or did not want to stop or prevent the pogrom."
    So, US government agencies were surprised that organized pogrom was brewing around Bondsteel base? C'mon. Four year later USA were the first to recognize that self-declared independent state.

    USA can install whatever government it wants from that medieval fortress they've recently built on hill overlooking Belgrade but we will never forget and never forgive. And we are just one among many nations around.

    Dig it, Mr. Buchanan?

    This American stands with the Slavs.

    Read More
  19. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    You clearly do not know the definition of 'fascist / fascism'.

    "If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say."

    And you do know the definition? Please provide it.

    Read More
  20. Talha says:
    @MEexpert

    Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.
     
    I am sure Vladmir Putin had a hand in writing this sentence. Ha Ha. That varmint is every where.

    But seriously, I think every one is talking about the symptoms and not the root cause of all these problems. This sickness is caused by the US and the Western governments because of their relentless assault on the Middle East. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry of the western European countries is sending his troops or planes to attack in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. They are all sovereign nations. What happens there is none of our business. We need to stop taking care of Israel and Saudi Arabia's worries. If they can't get along with their neighbors it is not our problem.

    Erdogan has higher aspirations of starting his own caliphate. His power grab has only one objective. He wants to be the supreme leader of the Sunni Muslim world. That is why the recent coup was staged; to purge the military, courts, and academics of his possible opponents, so he has a clear sailing when he does declare his caliphate.

    Moral of the story; get out of the Middle East, stop selling weapons to them and live peacefully and happily thereafter.

    Hey MEexpert,

    They are all sovereign nations. What happens there is none of our business. … If they can’t get along with their neighbors it is not our problem.

    Yeah – the way people go on about things on these forums you’d think Turkey or Egypt are the ones droning weddings in Calais or Hamburg.

    Don’t invade, don’t invite – pretty elementary.

    Erdogan has higher aspirations of starting his own caliphate. His power grab has only one objective. He wants to be the supreme leader of the Sunni Muslim world.

    You and I both know that ship has likely sailed far into the distance – this probably isn’t happening until the Mahdi (ra) comes around. I doubt the other nations will simply give up their little fiefdoms for the suzerainty to the Turks. The current events are definitely a rollback of Kemalism which – as DH stated – was a relatively short-lived anomaly; I mean exiling the Shaykh ul-Islam Mustafa Sabri (ra) – seriously??? It’ll be very, very interesting if they drop Latin script for reversion to Arabic or Persian letters – that would be a massive signal of where Turkey feels its future lies.

    At this point, I don’t think much more will be achieved than a workable EU/NATO-style economic/military international framework (something with far more teeth than the OIC). Far more internal cooperation and development is required so that these on-again off-again sanctions don’t tank their economies and they could probably cut their military budgets in half if they didn’t have to worry about so many soldiers facing off against each other over shared borders.

    Moral of the story; get out of the Middle East, stop selling weapons to them and live peacefully and happily thereafter.

    Amen – though how many body bags on both sides will be needed to figure this out is anybody’s guess.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Hey Talha and ME "expert"

    How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?
    , @mtn cur
    Shucks Talha, if we murikans don't sell our war junk to those folks, then what excuse do we have to design and tax to build more new ones?
  21. Svigor says:

    Wow, Erdogan is even more desperate than I thought. Now he’s picking a fight with the Dutch, who are extremely important to the Turkish economy.

    Not long ago, a democratizing Turkey, with the second-largest army in NATO, appeared on track to join the European Union.

    That’s not likely now, or perhaps ever.

    Yeah, stick a fork in that turkey, haha. Turkey seems on track toward Islamism. Track record suggests centuries to climb out of that hole, and Turkey’s a long way from being all the way in it yet (and I very much doubt they’re going to start climbing back out before they’ve spent some time down at the bottom).

    City officials in Germany refused to let him campaign in Turkish immigrant communities on behalf of an April 16 referendum proposal to augment his powers.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if Erdogan is desperate and strongly doubts his chances of winning the vote.

    It would be a hoot if Merkel winds up being the catalyst that finally drove European ethnopatriots into power.

    It all seems like pointless infighting.

    Wilders and Erdogan are both right-wing nationalists. In the world’s current state, they should be allies against the liberal world order. So what if the other guy is a Muslim? I’ll take a like-minded Muslim over an egalitarian any day.

    If Erdogan drives Dutch politics to the right, I can see the point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    There are over a million Turkish citizens in Germany, so with voting rights. Smaller numbers in other European countries. I am inclined to think "Yes" will win, because Erdogan seems desperate and even despotic for it and he and/or his followers might be up for stuffing the ballot boxes if genuine votes do not stack up.
    I think he has chosen to go for Holland rather than Germany because Holland is smaller and weaker.
  22. @Wally
    You clearly do not know the definition of 'fascist / fascism'.

    "If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say."

    Erdogan and the political system he heads tick many fascist boxes. His attacks on fascism in Europe have more than a touch of the self-referential about them.
    1. Ultra-nationalism, although this is generally a trait of the Turkish body politic.
    2. Militarism – again a trait that was around before him but one he certainly continues.
    3. Appeals to the “national will” (Turkish: milli irade), which he himself embodies by implication, interesting because Hitler and Mussolini tended to make equivalent appeals in their speeches. Watch an Erdogan speech and Hit and Muss will definitely come to mind.
    4. Dictatorial behaviour – closing down TV stations and newspapers at the stroke of a pen, filling the prisons with his opponents.
    5. Us versus them – Erdogan has no sense that people are opposed to him because of any good or even neutral reason. They must be “foreign focused” (fascists are of course prone to xenophobia) , or they must be terrorists etc. The MHP party which he has been cultivating to gain support for “Yes” in the referendum is linked to the Grey Wolves and is in fact Turkey’s classically fascist party. It is rather ironic to see obvious Grey Wolves (recognisible by their flags and hand signals) protesting against European fascism.
    6. Armenian genocide denial – this is an ongoing trait of Turkey’s body politic and Erdogan has continued it.
    Building on No.1 – Turkish politics and society possess this chauvinist underbelly, particularly visible if you know the language. And this was even the case before Erdogan came to particular prominence. In the 1990s, to give a trivial example, the national football team defeated the Hungarian national team and the country’s newspapers proclaimed it was “a second Mohacs”. Mohacs was an Ottoman victory in the 16th century in which the Hungarian king was killed and most of his country disappeared into the Ottoman Empire, with only a narrow western strip left which was dominated by Austria. These inflammatory newspaper headlines say a lot about Turkish ultra-chauvinism and neo-Ottomanism even in the 1990s, when the country seemed to be moving closer to EU membership than it is now.

    Read More
  23. Art says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Although I generally agree with Patrick Buchanan, I think this article has two flaws.

    First, sort of like the 1950s debate in the U.S. over "who lost China," a "loss" of Turkey somehow presumes it was "ours" to lose. Turkey, whether under the Ottomans, or under Erdogan, was always a highly problematic "Western" country. It's now reverting to its Islamic Ottoman roots; the secular regime developed Kemal Ataturk will be seen as a relatively brief anomaly.

    Secondly, Pat sort of assumes Vladimir Putin is behind the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe. I've never seen any evidence of that. From what I've seen and read, the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe see in Russia an inspiration of sorts; a government that actually likes Russians instead of despising its own people, as it is increasingly obvious many Western European and North American elites do. Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.

    Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.

    Is Putin the only real white man in power – is he the only one who sees the writing on the wall – is he the only one making the right decisions for his people?

    Trump says “America First” but it looks like it is “Israel First.” Is he going to break up Syria as the Jews want, or is he going to help Putin defeat Sunni ISIS and maintain one state of Syria?

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  24. @Altai
    To be fair, has anyone confirmed they didn't realise or they just had a French flag but no Dutch flag and thought, fuck it, hold it sideways and it'll still work?

    You shouldn't mistake for ignorance what might be better explained by laziness or early shop closing hours.

    It could be either. Frankly that section is apt to think Muslim foreigners are ayip (shameful) and non-Muslim foreigners are gavur (an abusive Turkish term – Byron entitled one of his poems or stories The Giaour, which is the same word with a different spelling). They might not know which flag it is, and care less.

    Read More
  25. @Svigor
    Wow, Erdogan is even more desperate than I thought. Now he's picking a fight with the Dutch, who are extremely important to the Turkish economy.

    Not long ago, a democratizing Turkey, with the second-largest army in NATO, appeared on track to join the European Union.

    That’s not likely now, or perhaps ever.
     
    Yeah, stick a fork in that turkey, haha. Turkey seems on track toward Islamism. Track record suggests centuries to climb out of that hole, and Turkey's a long way from being all the way in it yet (and I very much doubt they're going to start climbing back out before they've spent some time down at the bottom).

    City officials in Germany refused to let him campaign in Turkish immigrant communities on behalf of an April 16 referendum proposal to augment his powers.
     
    The only way this makes sense to me is if Erdogan is desperate and strongly doubts his chances of winning the vote.

    It would be a hoot if Merkel winds up being the catalyst that finally drove European ethnopatriots into power.

    It all seems like pointless infighting.

    Wilders and Erdogan are both right-wing nationalists. In the world’s current state, they should be allies against the liberal world order. So what if the other guy is a Muslim? I’ll take a like-minded Muslim over an egalitarian any day.
     
    If Erdogan drives Dutch politics to the right, I can see the point.

    There are over a million Turkish citizens in Germany, so with voting rights. Smaller numbers in other European countries. I am inclined to think “Yes” will win, because Erdogan seems desperate and even despotic for it and he and/or his followers might be up for stuffing the ballot boxes if genuine votes do not stack up.
    I think he has chosen to go for Holland rather than Germany because Holland is smaller and weaker.

    Read More
  26. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Hey MEexpert,

    They are all sovereign nations. What happens there is none of our business. ... If they can’t get along with their neighbors it is not our problem.
     
    Yeah - the way people go on about things on these forums you'd think Turkey or Egypt are the ones droning weddings in Calais or Hamburg.

    Don't invade, don't invite - pretty elementary.

    Erdogan has higher aspirations of starting his own caliphate. His power grab has only one objective. He wants to be the supreme leader of the Sunni Muslim world.
     
    You and I both know that ship has likely sailed far into the distance - this probably isn't happening until the Mahdi (ra) comes around. I doubt the other nations will simply give up their little fiefdoms for the suzerainty to the Turks. The current events are definitely a rollback of Kemalism which - as DH stated - was a relatively short-lived anomaly; I mean exiling the Shaykh ul-Islam Mustafa Sabri (ra) - seriously??? It'll be very, very interesting if they drop Latin script for reversion to Arabic or Persian letters - that would be a massive signal of where Turkey feels its future lies.

    At this point, I don't think much more will be achieved than a workable EU/NATO-style economic/military international framework (something with far more teeth than the OIC). Far more internal cooperation and development is required so that these on-again off-again sanctions don't tank their economies and they could probably cut their military budgets in half if they didn't have to worry about so many soldiers facing off against each other over shared borders.

    Moral of the story; get out of the Middle East, stop selling weapons to them and live peacefully and happily thereafter.
     
    Amen - though how many body bags on both sides will be needed to figure this out is anybody's guess.

    Peace.

    Hey Talha and ME “expert”

    How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    No problems here; don't invade, don't invite.

    And if the cost for a guarantee that the West will stop destructive policies and bombing and invading in the Muslim world is that Muslim immigrants must leave the West - bro, show me the official agreement and I'll sign it tomorrow and start packing. Hell, I'll recruit other Muslims to sign up to leave.

    Peace.

    , @MEexpert

    @iffen -- How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?
     

    @Talha -- And if the cost for a guarantee that the West will stop destructive policies and bombing and invading in the Muslim world is that Muslim immigrants must leave the West
     
    If the US stops all immigration subject to Talha's conditions, and all immigrants leave, I will guarantee you that the US society will come to a stand still and this big experiment will fail. Do you know that 61 percent of the graduate students in this country are immigrants? Immigrants supply doctors, engineers, teachers, and business professionals to this society. In other words, the immigrants make this country go. So you see, the US needs the immigrants for low skill jobs but also in the high skill professions.

    By the way, are the Jewish immigrants included in this ban as well?
    , @Art
    How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?

    Hey iffen,

    We all know you do not want the Muslims to solve their problem - you want more war that divides them and benefits your country Israel. Just like you do in America - divide and conquer is the game plan.

    You are just being disruptive - being nonsensical AGAIN.

    Peace --- Art
  27. Talha says:
    @iffen
    Hey Talha and ME "expert"

    How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?

    Hey iffen,

    No problems here; don’t invade, don’t invite.

    And if the cost for a guarantee that the West will stop destructive policies and bombing and invading in the Muslim world is that Muslim immigrants must leave the West – bro, show me the official agreement and I’ll sign it tomorrow and start packing. Hell, I’ll recruit other Muslims to sign up to leave.

    Peace.

    Read More
  28. bluedog says:
    @Quartermaster
    Turkey was never part of the west. Mustafa Kemal tried to make Turkey a western country, but all he changed was the superficial wrapping of Turkish society. The Islamist heart was never changed, and Turkey is reverting.

    The idea that we can get out of the ME, and quit selling weapons there and we'll live happily ever after is a fairy tale. There are others who will sell them weapons, and they will come boiling out of their countries to offer the rest of the world the choice - the Koran or the Sword. If you really think that people holding an ideology like Muhammad's will leave the rest of the world at peace, you are living in a dream world.

    I suppose you mean they are going to mount their camels or their ass’s which ever they prefer and swim the ocean blue to get here,as far as selling weapons its just about the only thing we have left to sell except that old worn out line of b.s. that we are exporting democracy mom’s apple pie and home and hearth and all the rest of it…

    Read More
  29. MEexpert says:
    @iffen
    Hey Talha and ME "expert"

    How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?

    — How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?

    — And if the cost for a guarantee that the West will stop destructive policies and bombing and invading in the Muslim world is that Muslim immigrants must leave the West

    If the US stops all immigration subject to Talha’s conditions, and all immigrants leave, I will guarantee you that the US society will come to a stand still and this big experiment will fail. Do you know that 61 percent of the graduate students in this country are immigrants? Immigrants supply doctors, engineers, teachers, and business professionals to this society. In other words, the immigrants make this country go. So you see, the US needs the immigrants for low skill jobs but also in the high skill professions.

    By the way, are the Jewish immigrants included in this ban as well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I will guarantee you that the US society will come to a stand still and this big experiment will fail.

    I'm willing to risk it.

    Immigrants supply doctors, engineers, teachers, and business professionals to this society.

    Just think what those immigrants could accomplish in their home countries. The doctors could save lives instead of doing boob jobs. The engineers could build infrastructure instead of increasing the profits of companies in the US. Teachers could teach in countries that have an illiteracy rate much higher than the US. Business professionals could make and count money in a currency other than US dollars, hell they could go back to some countries and create an actual medium of exchange that works.

    the US needs the immigrants for low skill jobs

    We have too many native born low skilled people. Immigration only makes the problem worse.

    By the way, are the Jewish immigrants included in this ban as well?

    All immigrants, the only exceptions being Einsteins and supermodels.

    , @anon
    The USA would do just fine without immigrants. So would all the western countries. In 1924 the USA virtually ended immigration for over forty years. No catastrophe resulted.
  30. mtn cur says:
    @Talha
    Hey MEexpert,

    They are all sovereign nations. What happens there is none of our business. ... If they can’t get along with their neighbors it is not our problem.
     
    Yeah - the way people go on about things on these forums you'd think Turkey or Egypt are the ones droning weddings in Calais or Hamburg.

    Don't invade, don't invite - pretty elementary.

    Erdogan has higher aspirations of starting his own caliphate. His power grab has only one objective. He wants to be the supreme leader of the Sunni Muslim world.
     
    You and I both know that ship has likely sailed far into the distance - this probably isn't happening until the Mahdi (ra) comes around. I doubt the other nations will simply give up their little fiefdoms for the suzerainty to the Turks. The current events are definitely a rollback of Kemalism which - as DH stated - was a relatively short-lived anomaly; I mean exiling the Shaykh ul-Islam Mustafa Sabri (ra) - seriously??? It'll be very, very interesting if they drop Latin script for reversion to Arabic or Persian letters - that would be a massive signal of where Turkey feels its future lies.

    At this point, I don't think much more will be achieved than a workable EU/NATO-style economic/military international framework (something with far more teeth than the OIC). Far more internal cooperation and development is required so that these on-again off-again sanctions don't tank their economies and they could probably cut their military budgets in half if they didn't have to worry about so many soldiers facing off against each other over shared borders.

    Moral of the story; get out of the Middle East, stop selling weapons to them and live peacefully and happily thereafter.
     
    Amen - though how many body bags on both sides will be needed to figure this out is anybody's guess.

    Peace.

    Shucks Talha, if we murikans don’t sell our war junk to those folks, then what excuse do we have to design and tax to build more new ones?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    mtncur! Always good to hear from you!

    then what excuse do we have to design and tax to build more new ones?
     
    Well, there's the rub, eh?

    Of course there's always this place - ever growing..."Come one, come all!"
    http://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=213

    Peace.
  31. KenH says:

    Is Turkey lost to the West? I never knew they were part of European and Western Civilization to begin with and for centuries were Europe’s mortal nemesis. Had the Ottomans been successful in conquering Europe a long, perhaps endless black night would have descended over Western Europe just like it did over Serbia in the 15th century. And with the continued inflows of unassimilable Arab Muslims and black Africans that night still may yet arrive, but I digress.

    Germany and the Netherlands are well within their rights to prevent Ergodan and other Turkish officials from waltzing into those countries and stoking the embers of Turkish nationalism and Islamism. Since the hearts of the Turkish diaspora still seem to be in Turkey and with Islam they should return. But that won’t happen since the welfare benefits and social safety net in Europe is just too good.

    The only thing I’ll add is that would the despicable Germanophobe Angela Merkel and Geert Wilders have taken the same stance with Israeli officials who were arriving to seek the support of the Jewish diaspora in Europe? My guess would be they would have bent over backwards to accommodate the Israeli officials. And if they didn’t the Israeli officials would pull the holocaust and anti-semitism card.

    Read More
  32. virgile says:

    Erdogan is a Sunni Islamist who wanted to be the leader of the Sunni Islam in the Arab world.
    Arab Sunnis have been humiliated severely by the loss of Iraq to Shia and the growth of Iran’s influence in the region. In the absence of a Sunni concerted reaction to this, we have seen the emergence of Sunni Islamist extremism, whose aim was to restore the dignity of the Sunnis in the region by showing military strength. Moslem Brotherhood, Alqaeda and the Islamic state are the manifestations of this revengeful and revolutionnary movement.
    In the contrary Erdogan is proposing the rehabilitation of Sunni identity and power through the propagation of economical success in the region, not through violence.
    For that he has turned his back on Europe and has embraced the under developed Arab countries to sell his goods and trigger their industrialization.
    The trouble is that the leaders of these countries have objected to Turkey’s hegemony on Arabs on the basis of the dark history of the ottoman empire on these countries.
    As Iran is becoming more powerful, Saudi Arabia is looking for Sunnis allies against Shias, but they lost confidence in Erdogan because they suspected he wants to take over the leadership of Sunnis in the region and because he is cozying with Iran.
    Saudi Arabia is now turning away from Turkey and looking up to Sunni Malaysia that is less threatening because it is geographically remoteness from the Arab world.
    Turkey has lost the confidence of the Arabs and has antagonized the West. Turkey is isolated and must make a serious move to sustain its economical success. It is now turning East and toward Africa. It could be successful. Yet as long as Erdogan is in power, the relation with the West will deteriorate. The only hope is that Erdogan is replaced soon enough by a more moderate leader.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    You can't put Wahabis and Sunnis in the same group. Even though the Wahabis/salafis like to portray themselves as Ahl-ul-Sunnah, in reality, they equally despise the mainstream Sunnis. They call them heretics as well. They have made alliance with them only to fight against the Shias.

    There are about 50 Muslim majority countries in the world. Out of those 50 only four countries have Shia Muslim majority; Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan. Out of 1.2 billion Muslims, Shias constitute about 12% of Muslim population. I fail to understand how could the 12% of Muslim population be a threat to the entire world. Why is Saudi Arabia so terrified of the Shias? Why is Israel so afraid of Shias? Why is the US afraid of Iran? When have the Shias shown any sign of aggression?

    So what if Iraq gets a Shia government. For all those years of Saddam and before that, Sunnis have ruled the Shia Iraq. No one protested about that. Bahrain has Shia majority but is ruled by a Sunni ruler. He is killing the Shia population with nary a peep out of the US.

    Think about it. Almost the entire world, the US, Europe, Australia, and the Middle East, including Israel, want to destroy Iran. WHY? Both Saudi Arabia and Israel combined have 50 times more weapons than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has Nuclear weapons while Iran does not. Why is the West so interested in keeping this Shia-Sunni war going? Iraq and Syria are finally winning the war against ISIS without much help from the West, yet the US is inserting herself into both places, taking a chance of confrontation with Iran and or Russia. Shias and Sunnis have had differences for the past 1500 years and sometimes they got bloody but never to this extent. Saudi Arabia is leading the pack with the help of the West and Israel.

    Iran has not attacked any of her neighbors or anybody else for over 500 years, at least. Why isn't she entitled to develop technology to make life better for her citizens?
  33. Talha says:
    @mtn cur
    Shucks Talha, if we murikans don't sell our war junk to those folks, then what excuse do we have to design and tax to build more new ones?

    mtncur! Always good to hear from you!

    then what excuse do we have to design and tax to build more new ones?

    Well, there’s the rub, eh?

    Of course there’s always this place – ever growing…”Come one, come all!”

    http://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=213

    Peace.

    Read More
  34. MEexpert says:
    @virgile
    Erdogan is a Sunni Islamist who wanted to be the leader of the Sunni Islam in the Arab world.
    Arab Sunnis have been humiliated severely by the loss of Iraq to Shia and the growth of Iran's influence in the region. In the absence of a Sunni concerted reaction to this, we have seen the emergence of Sunni Islamist extremism, whose aim was to restore the dignity of the Sunnis in the region by showing military strength. Moslem Brotherhood, Alqaeda and the Islamic state are the manifestations of this revengeful and revolutionnary movement.
    In the contrary Erdogan is proposing the rehabilitation of Sunni identity and power through the propagation of economical success in the region, not through violence.
    For that he has turned his back on Europe and has embraced the under developed Arab countries to sell his goods and trigger their industrialization.
    The trouble is that the leaders of these countries have objected to Turkey's hegemony on Arabs on the basis of the dark history of the ottoman empire on these countries.
    As Iran is becoming more powerful, Saudi Arabia is looking for Sunnis allies against Shias, but they lost confidence in Erdogan because they suspected he wants to take over the leadership of Sunnis in the region and because he is cozying with Iran.
    Saudi Arabia is now turning away from Turkey and looking up to Sunni Malaysia that is less threatening because it is geographically remoteness from the Arab world.
    Turkey has lost the confidence of the Arabs and has antagonized the West. Turkey is isolated and must make a serious move to sustain its economical success. It is now turning East and toward Africa. It could be successful. Yet as long as Erdogan is in power, the relation with the West will deteriorate. The only hope is that Erdogan is replaced soon enough by a more moderate leader.

    You can’t put Wahabis and Sunnis in the same group. Even though the Wahabis/salafis like to portray themselves as Ahl-ul-Sunnah, in reality, they equally despise the mainstream Sunnis. They call them heretics as well. They have made alliance with them only to fight against the Shias.

    There are about 50 Muslim majority countries in the world. Out of those 50 only four countries have Shia Muslim majority; Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan. Out of 1.2 billion Muslims, Shias constitute about 12% of Muslim population. I fail to understand how could the 12% of Muslim population be a threat to the entire world. Why is Saudi Arabia so terrified of the Shias? Why is Israel so afraid of Shias? Why is the US afraid of Iran? When have the Shias shown any sign of aggression?

    So what if Iraq gets a Shia government. For all those years of Saddam and before that, Sunnis have ruled the Shia Iraq. No one protested about that. Bahrain has Shia majority but is ruled by a Sunni ruler. He is killing the Shia population with nary a peep out of the US.

    Think about it. Almost the entire world, the US, Europe, Australia, and the Middle East, including Israel, want to destroy Iran. WHY? Both Saudi Arabia and Israel combined have 50 times more weapons than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has Nuclear weapons while Iran does not. Why is the West so interested in keeping this Shia-Sunni war going? Iraq and Syria are finally winning the war against ISIS without much help from the West, yet the US is inserting herself into both places, taking a chance of confrontation with Iran and or Russia. Shias and Sunnis have had differences for the past 1500 years and sometimes they got bloody but never to this extent. Saudi Arabia is leading the pack with the help of the West and Israel.

    Iran has not attacked any of her neighbors or anybody else for over 500 years, at least. Why isn’t she entitled to develop technology to make life better for her citizens?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Saudi Arabia is leading the pack with the help of the West and Israel.

    Golly Gee -- al three have the same bankers - the Rothschild.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. 100% for sure - there will never be peace with the Rothschild as the world bankers.

    , @anon

    Iran has not attacked any of her neighbors or anybody else for over 500 years, at least. Why isn’t she entitled to develop technology to make life better for her citizens?
     
    Iran has attacked pretty near all her neighbors over the past 500 years: the Turks, the Portuguese, the Afghans, etc. You can argue that these wars were largely justified, but what does any of this have to do with anything?
  35. Svigor says:

    If the US stops all immigration subject to Talha’s conditions, and all immigrants leave, I will guarantee you that the US society will come to a stand still and this big experiment will fail. Do you know that 61 percent of the graduate students in this country are immigrants? Immigrants supply doctors, engineers, teachers, and business professionals to this society. In other words, the immigrants make this country go. So you see, the US needs the immigrants for low skill jobs but also in the high skill professions.

    That’s great for the universities’ endowment – so what? And that was where your statistics began, and ended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    That’s great for the universities’ endowment – so what? And that was where your statistics began, and ended.
     
    Obviously, you don't know anything about the universities. Your comment suggests that your upper chamber is empty. For your information, I have forgotten more statistics then you will ever learn.
  36. Svigor says:

    MEexpert highlights why I dropped the anti-war thing; anti-war types don’t reciprocate on open borders. Most of them support the race-replacement and demographic invasion of the west.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    MEexpert highlights why I dropped the anti-war thing; anti-war types don’t reciprocate on open borders. Most of them support the race-replacement and demographic invasion of the west.
     
    You are talking apples and oranges. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. You are wrong. Please be my guest and immigrate to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, or even Israel. Take your pick. I have no problem with open borders. Perhaps you would like to move to Gaza.
  37. Art says:
    @iffen
    Hey Talha and ME "expert"

    How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?

    How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?

    Hey iffen,

    We all know you do not want the Muslims to solve their problem – you want more war that divides them and benefits your country Israel. Just like you do in America – divide and conquer is the game plan.

    You are just being disruptive – being nonsensical AGAIN.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  38. Art says:
    @MEexpert
    You can't put Wahabis and Sunnis in the same group. Even though the Wahabis/salafis like to portray themselves as Ahl-ul-Sunnah, in reality, they equally despise the mainstream Sunnis. They call them heretics as well. They have made alliance with them only to fight against the Shias.

    There are about 50 Muslim majority countries in the world. Out of those 50 only four countries have Shia Muslim majority; Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan. Out of 1.2 billion Muslims, Shias constitute about 12% of Muslim population. I fail to understand how could the 12% of Muslim population be a threat to the entire world. Why is Saudi Arabia so terrified of the Shias? Why is Israel so afraid of Shias? Why is the US afraid of Iran? When have the Shias shown any sign of aggression?

    So what if Iraq gets a Shia government. For all those years of Saddam and before that, Sunnis have ruled the Shia Iraq. No one protested about that. Bahrain has Shia majority but is ruled by a Sunni ruler. He is killing the Shia population with nary a peep out of the US.

    Think about it. Almost the entire world, the US, Europe, Australia, and the Middle East, including Israel, want to destroy Iran. WHY? Both Saudi Arabia and Israel combined have 50 times more weapons than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has Nuclear weapons while Iran does not. Why is the West so interested in keeping this Shia-Sunni war going? Iraq and Syria are finally winning the war against ISIS without much help from the West, yet the US is inserting herself into both places, taking a chance of confrontation with Iran and or Russia. Shias and Sunnis have had differences for the past 1500 years and sometimes they got bloody but never to this extent. Saudi Arabia is leading the pack with the help of the West and Israel.

    Iran has not attacked any of her neighbors or anybody else for over 500 years, at least. Why isn't she entitled to develop technology to make life better for her citizens?

    Saudi Arabia is leading the pack with the help of the West and Israel.

    Golly Gee — al three have the same bankers – the Rothschild.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. 100% for sure – there will never be peace with the Rothschild as the world bankers.

    Read More
  39. MEexpert says:
    @Svigor
    MEexpert highlights why I dropped the anti-war thing; anti-war types don't reciprocate on open borders. Most of them support the race-replacement and demographic invasion of the west.

    MEexpert highlights why I dropped the anti-war thing; anti-war types don’t reciprocate on open borders. Most of them support the race-replacement and demographic invasion of the west.

    You are talking apples and oranges. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other. You are wrong. Please be my guest and immigrate to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, or even Israel. Take your pick. I have no problem with open borders. Perhaps you would like to move to Gaza.

    Read More
  40. MEexpert says:
    @Svigor

    If the US stops all immigration subject to Talha’s conditions, and all immigrants leave, I will guarantee you that the US society will come to a stand still and this big experiment will fail. Do you know that 61 percent of the graduate students in this country are immigrants? Immigrants supply doctors, engineers, teachers, and business professionals to this society. In other words, the immigrants make this country go. So you see, the US needs the immigrants for low skill jobs but also in the high skill professions.
     
    That's great for the universities' endowment - so what? And that was where your statistics began, and ended.

    That’s great for the universities’ endowment – so what? And that was where your statistics began, and ended.

    Obviously, you don’t know anything about the universities. Your comment suggests that your upper chamber is empty. For your information, I have forgotten more statistics then you will ever learn.

    Read More
  41. Svigor says:

    You are talking apples and oranges. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other. You are wrong. Please be my guest and immigrate to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, or even Israel. Take your pick. I have no problem with open borders. Perhaps you would like to move to Gaza.

    More like I care about the orange industry, and stopped caring about the apple industry, because the apple industry works to undermine the orange industry. If the apple industry reciprocated the orange industry’s fruit industry solidarity efforts, things might’ve gone differently.

    I have no idea what you’re on about suggesting that I emigrate.

    Obviously, you don’t know anything about the universities. Your comment suggests that your upper chamber is empty. For your information, I have forgotten more statistics then you will ever learn.

    I’ll put it another way – who gives a shit that we educate many foreigners here? As for statistics, you may have many, but you deployed only one. And an irrelevant one at that.

    Even statistics wouldn’t move you beyond the Homo Economicus argument, which I reject; slipping $1k in my pocket won’t make my murder any more in my interests.

    You anti-war types care more about foreigners than your own people.

    Read More
  42. Svigor says:

    Oh, now I get what you were saying. You thought I meant that I want ME countries to reciprocate our immigration policies. No. I meant I want anti-war types to to reciprocate borders sanity crowd’s anti-war positions by adopting borders sanity. Even a bit of this in evidence would soften my position, but it hasn’t been forthcoming; the only people who are both anti-war and anti-open-borders are ethnopatriots, who are anti-open-borders first, and anti-war second.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    the only people who are both anti-war and anti-open-borders are ethnopatriots, who are anti-open-borders first, and anti-war second
     
    Speaking as someone who is both anti-war (wars of choice, that is - I'm not a pacifist) and anti-open-borders, my experience has been that opposition to wars of choice has been (going back decades, until relatively recently) mostly a thing of the political left in the past while anti-open-borders has been a thing of the political right, which is a major reason why the two positions were relatively rarely found together.

    I've also noted that antiwar sentiment on the right is strongly partisan - there was opposition to wars waged by Clinton and Obama, but precious little to those by Bush and, I suspect, to those to be waged by Trump. We shall see whether things have changed much. This partisan aspect is present on the left as well, but less obviously because of the higher proportion of people with genuine anti-war views.

    I take no pleasure in this, being a man of the right, but it is a view confidently held by virtue of long observation.

    Anyway, I don't see mutual reciprocation as a plausible mechanism in such matters. People just need to be honest, wise and informed enough to recognise that both sides of invade the world, invite the world are disastrously stupid and self-destructive, and that the combination of the two is suicidally so.
  43. Years ago I read a graphic novel or comic that contained two stories adapted from the Turkish nationalist writer Omer Seyfettin (1884-1920). Seyfettin anticipated Ataturk’s language reforms. He kept his language as simple as possible and favoured Turkish vocabulary over words of Arabic or Persian origin. What was interesting was the nature of the stories. One told of an Ottoman sea captain who was captured by Christians, Maltese corsairs, and sold into slavery, spending years as a galley slave. He is sold to a master who turns him loose in his old age, and he lives in a hut and sustains himself by begging. Suddenly Ottoman sailors on a raid land and he runs up to them and he tells them he is a Turk. They take him on board the ship, and he discovers it is commanded by his own son, born before the voyage in which he was captured. His son tells him to rest but he demands a turban and a sword and if he is “martyred” in the coming clash with Christians, he wants to be buried under the Turkish flag.
    The second story is about an Ottoman sent on a dangerous mission as an ambassador to give a defiant message to Shah Ismail of Persia. He does and gets out of there alive, somewhat surprisingly, but the story is mainly interesting because it depicts Ismail as an appalling tyrant who boils his enemies alive and engages in cannibalism. He is also Shia and of course the Ottoman court and the hero of the story are Sunnis.
    This graphic novel was published in the 1990s, ie. before Erdogan and under a “secular” regime with better relations to Europe and NATO than now. It was also officially approved, with the seal of the Turkish Education Ministry on the flyleaf, and the ministry probably financed its publication.
    Erdogan and current crises in Europe and the Middle East are just a development of what was there already. Perhaps it was an undertone then, it is more an overtone now.

    Read More
  44. https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/03/14/video-chp-members-attacked-akp-officials-campaigning-referendum/

    The internal as well as the external condition of Turkey is far from peaceful. Thuggery from AKP members is clearly predicated on the police not intervening against them, or at least not very much.

    Read More
  45. Vlad says:

    In one his earlier articles Pat Buchanan had himself identified the problem of the Europeans, that is that population on the other side of the Mediterranean is exploding into over a billion of hungry, angry and poor folks looking into wealthy, lazy, bisexual or gay or non=reproducing Europeans who have a guilty conscience over colonialism and cannot get themselves to enforce their own laws that people who come to Europe are supposed to have the visa. On top of that you have capital flight to third world countries, a failed integration through Euro and as a result resurgent nationalism, my country first survivalist panic. Of course Russia has nothing to do with any of it. All these challenges were of the Europeans own making.
    For all those folks who demonize Putin, they should know that his government is the first government in one hundred years that made things better for the Russian people rather than for the worse.

    Read More
  46. Miro23 says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Although I generally agree with Patrick Buchanan, I think this article has two flaws.

    First, sort of like the 1950s debate in the U.S. over "who lost China," a "loss" of Turkey somehow presumes it was "ours" to lose. Turkey, whether under the Ottomans, or under Erdogan, was always a highly problematic "Western" country. It's now reverting to its Islamic Ottoman roots; the secular regime developed Kemal Ataturk will be seen as a relatively brief anomaly.

    Secondly, Pat sort of assumes Vladimir Putin is behind the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe. I've never seen any evidence of that. From what I've seen and read, the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe see in Russia an inspiration of sorts; a government that actually likes Russians instead of despising its own people, as it is increasingly obvious many Western European and North American elites do. Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.

    I’m not sure about the transient nature of Ataturk. A large section of Turks aspire to be Western, and for centuries prior to the Islamic invasion, Constantinople (Istambul) was the centre of the Byzantine Christian Eastern Orthodox world.

    Apart from that I agree completely about European ethnonationalism and Putin.

    Secondly, Pat sort of assumes Vladimir Putin is behind the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe. I’ve never seen any evidence of that. From what I’ve seen and read, the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe see in Russia an inspiration of sorts; a government that actually likes Russians instead of despising its own people, as it is increasingly obvious many Western European and North American elites do. Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    A large section of Turks do have Western aspirations, and many of the stresses and strains in Turkey are the result of conflicting pulls - many arising from its geographical position. Late Ottoman sultans realised that the armed forces and civil service needed modernising because one lost war after another in the 18th and 19th centuries was showing up the empire's deficiencies. Significantly, most educated Turks despise Erdogan. Although they do not outvote the uneducated ones, many of whom venerate Erdogan, they are the the ones who make the society function at all.
  47. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert
    You can't put Wahabis and Sunnis in the same group. Even though the Wahabis/salafis like to portray themselves as Ahl-ul-Sunnah, in reality, they equally despise the mainstream Sunnis. They call them heretics as well. They have made alliance with them only to fight against the Shias.

    There are about 50 Muslim majority countries in the world. Out of those 50 only four countries have Shia Muslim majority; Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan. Out of 1.2 billion Muslims, Shias constitute about 12% of Muslim population. I fail to understand how could the 12% of Muslim population be a threat to the entire world. Why is Saudi Arabia so terrified of the Shias? Why is Israel so afraid of Shias? Why is the US afraid of Iran? When have the Shias shown any sign of aggression?

    So what if Iraq gets a Shia government. For all those years of Saddam and before that, Sunnis have ruled the Shia Iraq. No one protested about that. Bahrain has Shia majority but is ruled by a Sunni ruler. He is killing the Shia population with nary a peep out of the US.

    Think about it. Almost the entire world, the US, Europe, Australia, and the Middle East, including Israel, want to destroy Iran. WHY? Both Saudi Arabia and Israel combined have 50 times more weapons than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has Nuclear weapons while Iran does not. Why is the West so interested in keeping this Shia-Sunni war going? Iraq and Syria are finally winning the war against ISIS without much help from the West, yet the US is inserting herself into both places, taking a chance of confrontation with Iran and or Russia. Shias and Sunnis have had differences for the past 1500 years and sometimes they got bloody but never to this extent. Saudi Arabia is leading the pack with the help of the West and Israel.

    Iran has not attacked any of her neighbors or anybody else for over 500 years, at least. Why isn't she entitled to develop technology to make life better for her citizens?

    Iran has not attacked any of her neighbors or anybody else for over 500 years, at least. Why isn’t she entitled to develop technology to make life better for her citizens?

    Iran has attacked pretty near all her neighbors over the past 500 years: the Turks, the Portuguese, the Afghans, etc. You can argue that these wars were largely justified, but what does any of this have to do with anything?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    You better get back in the history class and learn some real history, not some propaganda. You must be reading an Israeli history book or one by a Saudi.
  48. iffen says:
    @MEexpert

    @iffen -- How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?
     

    @Talha -- And if the cost for a guarantee that the West will stop destructive policies and bombing and invading in the Muslim world is that Muslim immigrants must leave the West
     
    If the US stops all immigration subject to Talha's conditions, and all immigrants leave, I will guarantee you that the US society will come to a stand still and this big experiment will fail. Do you know that 61 percent of the graduate students in this country are immigrants? Immigrants supply doctors, engineers, teachers, and business professionals to this society. In other words, the immigrants make this country go. So you see, the US needs the immigrants for low skill jobs but also in the high skill professions.

    By the way, are the Jewish immigrants included in this ban as well?

    I will guarantee you that the US society will come to a stand still and this big experiment will fail.

    I’m willing to risk it.

    Immigrants supply doctors, engineers, teachers, and business professionals to this society.

    Just think what those immigrants could accomplish in their home countries. The doctors could save lives instead of doing boob jobs. The engineers could build infrastructure instead of increasing the profits of companies in the US. Teachers could teach in countries that have an illiteracy rate much higher than the US. Business professionals could make and count money in a currency other than US dollars, hell they could go back to some countries and create an actual medium of exchange that works.

    the US needs the immigrants for low skill jobs

    We have too many native born low skilled people. Immigration only makes the problem worse.

    By the way, are the Jewish immigrants included in this ban as well?

    All immigrants, the only exceptions being Einsteins and supermodels.

    Read More
  49. MEexpert says:
    @anon

    Iran has not attacked any of her neighbors or anybody else for over 500 years, at least. Why isn’t she entitled to develop technology to make life better for her citizens?
     
    Iran has attacked pretty near all her neighbors over the past 500 years: the Turks, the Portuguese, the Afghans, etc. You can argue that these wars were largely justified, but what does any of this have to do with anything?

    You better get back in the history class and learn some real history, not some propaganda. You must be reading an Israeli history book or one by a Saudi.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I like my Israeli and Saudi historians, especially when they go under deep cover as Persians and members of other ethnicities. In fact, by this means of infiltration they have surreptitiously managed to take over almost the whole field of Persian history. Sometimes they write excellent articles on Wikipedia, like this one.
  50. Is Turkey lost to the West?

    But what West?

    West is lost to the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Good points - either way, it's probably about time to start thinking about moving these bad boys further West:
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-h-bombs-in-turkey

    If they are eventually used to kill Russian women, children and old people, it is best they are launched from the West where they were created - I don't want Muslim lands to participate in that nonsense.

    Peace.

  51. Talha says:
    @Priss Factor
    Is Turkey lost to the West?

    But what West?

    West is lost to the West.

    Good points – either way, it’s probably about time to start thinking about moving these bad boys further West:

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-h-bombs-in-turkey

    If they are eventually used to kill Russian women, children and old people, it is best they are launched from the West where they were created – I don’t want Muslim lands to participate in that nonsense.

    Peace.

    Read More
  52. @Miro23
    I'm not sure about the transient nature of Ataturk. A large section of Turks aspire to be Western, and for centuries prior to the Islamic invasion, Constantinople (Istambul) was the centre of the Byzantine Christian Eastern Orthodox world.

    Apart from that I agree completely about European ethnonationalism and Putin.

    Secondly, Pat sort of assumes Vladimir Putin is behind the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe. I’ve never seen any evidence of that. From what I’ve seen and read, the ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe see in Russia an inspiration of sorts; a government that actually likes Russians instead of despising its own people, as it is increasingly obvious many Western European and North American elites do. Vladmir Putin may have his flaws, but most Russians sense that he is at least on their side.
     

    A large section of Turks do have Western aspirations, and many of the stresses and strains in Turkey are the result of conflicting pulls – many arising from its geographical position. Late Ottoman sultans realised that the armed forces and civil service needed modernising because one lost war after another in the 18th and 19th centuries was showing up the empire’s deficiencies. Significantly, most educated Turks despise Erdogan. Although they do not outvote the uneducated ones, many of whom venerate Erdogan, they are the the ones who make the society function at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    52 Uebersetzer > A large section of Turks do have Western aspirations


    As do quite a good fraction of Pakistanis. If you can keep them from becoming locally concentrated in their own neighborhoods, they will tend towards increasing westernization. This was the UK's mistake.... allowing them to form their own ghettos.

    A country which was in dire need of quality immigrants might choose to learn how to refine the ore so as to extract the gold. In reality, there really is no country which is in ANY actual need of immigrants.

    Furthermore, you could harvest the migrants' best years and send them back home in old age with a western pension (ie, nonimmigrant status, like Singapore does). Nowadays there is some VERY good quality-of-life in Lahore.... if you have a western pension. If I only had a US Social Security income, i'd certainly rather live in Lahore than in California.
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert
    You better get back in the history class and learn some real history, not some propaganda. You must be reading an Israeli history book or one by a Saudi.

    I like my Israeli and Saudi historians, especially when they go under deep cover as Persians and members of other ethnicities. In fact, by this means of infiltration they have surreptitiously managed to take over almost the whole field of Persian history. Sometimes they write excellent articles on Wikipedia, like this one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    That's right. I expected your knowledge of history to be at the level of Wikipedia.
  54. kemerd says:
    @Quartermaster
    Turkey was never part of the west. Mustafa Kemal tried to make Turkey a western country, but all he changed was the superficial wrapping of Turkish society. The Islamist heart was never changed, and Turkey is reverting.

    The idea that we can get out of the ME, and quit selling weapons there and we'll live happily ever after is a fairy tale. There are others who will sell them weapons, and they will come boiling out of their countries to offer the rest of the world the choice - the Koran or the Sword. If you really think that people holding an ideology like Muhammad's will leave the rest of the world at peace, you are living in a dream world.

    No Sir, you are mistaken.

    Turkey has a long history of democratisation (about 200 years), and turkish society is secular and that is has always been so. Even the ottoman dynasty has never ruled by the Islam as it is understood today.

    In fact, Erdogan and his ilk and their understanding of islam is an anomaly for Turkey. And there is every indication that his rule and islamisation (sunni salafism, muslim brotherhood) of Turkey is another botched NATO operation to contain Turkish left which was rising steadily since 1950s and keep the country anchored to US interests. Erdogan himself knows this and he also knows that his masters has decided to let him go, that is probably the reason why is is so erratic and making overtures to Russia as if he wanted to change sides.

    In reality, the turkish ruling elite is anchored to the west and western values for at least 200 years, and they have no intention to change that. They just wanted a little bit of islam to contain the masses but Erdogan went one step too far in islamisation. The only reason Erdogan is still in place is that they want to replace him with a bit better optics and loyal but do not want to ruin the islamisation project that they nurtured for at least 50 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    The old "secularist" military elite in Turkey were not in practice all that secularist - they thought Islam had its uses. Kenan Evren, the general who led the 1980 coup and who died in 2015, was disturbed by the number of Marxist books in circulation in Turkey in the 1970s and thought bolstering Sunni Islam in publishing and more general political and cultural life would be a useful counter to this. In the late 1960s, knife-wielding gangs attacking leftists were often heard to shout "Allah Akbar" and it is likely that NATO generals as well as imams were mobilising them.
    Erdogan was part of a "moderate Muslim" project and significantly the Western liberal-left newspapers tended to give him and the AKP favourable coverage - he was "democratising" Turkey etc. It is really only since 2013 that such coverage had tended to be more negative.
  55. EU is a prime example that Diversity is Our Weakness.

    Also, politics abhors a vacuum. EU wussiness on the national question creates a vacuum that is filled by aggressive Africans and Muslims.

    EU is a Tribal Siberia… which is to say it is empty and hollow.

    Because Siberia is vast and empty, Russians claimed it.
    Because the European soul is hollow and hasn’t the guts to claim and defend Europe, other peoples are coming to fill in the passion.

    In a way, the Turks are the new patriots. Since Dutch are unwilling to defend and fight for Holland, another people will claim the land and wave their flags of victory and conquest.

    Read More
  56. Randal says:
    @Svigor
    Oh, now I get what you were saying. You thought I meant that I want ME countries to reciprocate our immigration policies. No. I meant I want anti-war types to to reciprocate borders sanity crowd's anti-war positions by adopting borders sanity. Even a bit of this in evidence would soften my position, but it hasn't been forthcoming; the only people who are both anti-war and anti-open-borders are ethnopatriots, who are anti-open-borders first, and anti-war second.

    the only people who are both anti-war and anti-open-borders are ethnopatriots, who are anti-open-borders first, and anti-war second

    Speaking as someone who is both anti-war (wars of choice, that is – I’m not a pacifist) and anti-open-borders, my experience has been that opposition to wars of choice has been (going back decades, until relatively recently) mostly a thing of the political left in the past while anti-open-borders has been a thing of the political right, which is a major reason why the two positions were relatively rarely found together.

    I’ve also noted that antiwar sentiment on the right is strongly partisan – there was opposition to wars waged by Clinton and Obama, but precious little to those by Bush and, I suspect, to those to be waged by Trump. We shall see whether things have changed much. This partisan aspect is present on the left as well, but less obviously because of the higher proportion of people with genuine anti-war views.

    I take no pleasure in this, being a man of the right, but it is a view confidently held by virtue of long observation.

    Anyway, I don’t see mutual reciprocation as a plausible mechanism in such matters. People just need to be honest, wise and informed enough to recognise that both sides of invade the world, invite the world are disastrously stupid and self-destructive, and that the combination of the two is suicidally so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    I’ve also noted that antiwar sentiment on the right is strongly partisan
     
    It is on the left even more so than the right. Notice how Democrat opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars dissipated as soon as Obama assumed office (it was political posturing anyway since Iraq was becoming a quagmire) . I think Dennis Kucinich and a few others held firm but everyone else sold out to the mulatto messiah.

    I personally knew several liberals who would constantly rail against the wars then become champions of them when Obama continued in their prosecution while in office. They suddenly became "good" wars once one of their own was in power and calling the shots.

    Most non-neocon rightists eventually figured out that they'd been had and turned against the war and our interventionist foreign policy in general. But it should be noted that it was the paleoconservatives who staunchly opposed military action from the outset and who were castigated and derided by the Jewish neocons and their goy minions as "unpatriotic conservatives". FOX News stopped asking Pat Buchanan to make appearances since he was unflappable and made too much sense.

    Trump was elected with the promise of non-intervention and a more humble foreign policy. Or at least very limited compared to what we've seen. His appointment of saber rattlers, Russophobes, and Iranophobes is not promising, however, and time will tell if he'll become a complete bust on foreign policy like GW Bush.

  57. MEexpert says:
    @Anon
    I like my Israeli and Saudi historians, especially when they go under deep cover as Persians and members of other ethnicities. In fact, by this means of infiltration they have surreptitiously managed to take over almost the whole field of Persian history. Sometimes they write excellent articles on Wikipedia, like this one.

    That’s right. I expected your knowledge of history to be at the level of Wikipedia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    My dear and (I take on trust) expert friend,

    When will you learn that an argument is always more effective than an insult?

    Love,
    R.
  58. KenH says:
    @Randal

    the only people who are both anti-war and anti-open-borders are ethnopatriots, who are anti-open-borders first, and anti-war second
     
    Speaking as someone who is both anti-war (wars of choice, that is - I'm not a pacifist) and anti-open-borders, my experience has been that opposition to wars of choice has been (going back decades, until relatively recently) mostly a thing of the political left in the past while anti-open-borders has been a thing of the political right, which is a major reason why the two positions were relatively rarely found together.

    I've also noted that antiwar sentiment on the right is strongly partisan - there was opposition to wars waged by Clinton and Obama, but precious little to those by Bush and, I suspect, to those to be waged by Trump. We shall see whether things have changed much. This partisan aspect is present on the left as well, but less obviously because of the higher proportion of people with genuine anti-war views.

    I take no pleasure in this, being a man of the right, but it is a view confidently held by virtue of long observation.

    Anyway, I don't see mutual reciprocation as a plausible mechanism in such matters. People just need to be honest, wise and informed enough to recognise that both sides of invade the world, invite the world are disastrously stupid and self-destructive, and that the combination of the two is suicidally so.

    I’ve also noted that antiwar sentiment on the right is strongly partisan

    It is on the left even more so than the right. Notice how Democrat opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars dissipated as soon as Obama assumed office (it was political posturing anyway since Iraq was becoming a quagmire) . I think Dennis Kucinich and a few others held firm but everyone else sold out to the mulatto messiah.

    I personally knew several liberals who would constantly rail against the wars then become champions of them when Obama continued in their prosecution while in office. They suddenly became “good” wars once one of their own was in power and calling the shots.

    Most non-neocon rightists eventually figured out that they’d been had and turned against the war and our interventionist foreign policy in general. But it should be noted that it was the paleoconservatives who staunchly opposed military action from the outset and who were castigated and derided by the Jewish neocons and their goy minions as “unpatriotic conservatives”. FOX News stopped asking Pat Buchanan to make appearances since he was unflappable and made too much sense.

    Trump was elected with the promise of non-intervention and a more humble foreign policy. Or at least very limited compared to what we’ve seen. His appointment of saber rattlers, Russophobes, and Iranophobes is not promising, however, and time will tell if he’ll become a complete bust on foreign policy like GW Bush.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    It's certainly true that there is a lot of partisan hypocrisy on both sides.

    Some of the paleocons on the right, and the genuine pacifists on the left, held their ground, but there were precious few of either.

    Trump was elected with the promise of non-intervention and a more humble foreign policy. Or at least very limited compared to what we’ve seen. His appointment of saber rattlers, Russophobes, and Iranophobes is not promising, however, and time will tell if he’ll become a complete bust on foreign policy like GW Bush.
     
    Yes, time will tell as you say.

    I see the early signs as not all that good, but I'm still hopeful, mostly on the basis that I think Trump has a lot more about him than Bush II ever had, and might prove less of a prisoner of those pouring distorted nonsense into his ears.
  59. Randal says:
    @KenH

    I’ve also noted that antiwar sentiment on the right is strongly partisan
     
    It is on the left even more so than the right. Notice how Democrat opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars dissipated as soon as Obama assumed office (it was political posturing anyway since Iraq was becoming a quagmire) . I think Dennis Kucinich and a few others held firm but everyone else sold out to the mulatto messiah.

    I personally knew several liberals who would constantly rail against the wars then become champions of them when Obama continued in their prosecution while in office. They suddenly became "good" wars once one of their own was in power and calling the shots.

    Most non-neocon rightists eventually figured out that they'd been had and turned against the war and our interventionist foreign policy in general. But it should be noted that it was the paleoconservatives who staunchly opposed military action from the outset and who were castigated and derided by the Jewish neocons and their goy minions as "unpatriotic conservatives". FOX News stopped asking Pat Buchanan to make appearances since he was unflappable and made too much sense.

    Trump was elected with the promise of non-intervention and a more humble foreign policy. Or at least very limited compared to what we've seen. His appointment of saber rattlers, Russophobes, and Iranophobes is not promising, however, and time will tell if he'll become a complete bust on foreign policy like GW Bush.

    It’s certainly true that there is a lot of partisan hypocrisy on both sides.

    Some of the paleocons on the right, and the genuine pacifists on the left, held their ground, but there were precious few of either.

    Trump was elected with the promise of non-intervention and a more humble foreign policy. Or at least very limited compared to what we’ve seen. His appointment of saber rattlers, Russophobes, and Iranophobes is not promising, however, and time will tell if he’ll become a complete bust on foreign policy like GW Bush.

    Yes, time will tell as you say.

    I see the early signs as not all that good, but I’m still hopeful, mostly on the basis that I think Trump has a lot more about him than Bush II ever had, and might prove less of a prisoner of those pouring distorted nonsense into his ears.

    Read More
  60. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert
    That's right. I expected your knowledge of history to be at the level of Wikipedia.

    My dear and (I take on trust) expert friend,

    When will you learn that an argument is always more effective than an insult?

    Love,
    R.

    Read More
  61. Cato says:
    @Jason Liu
    It all seems like pointless infighting.

    Wilders and Erdogan are both right-wing nationalists. In the world's current state, they should be allies against the liberal world order. So what if the other guy is a Muslim? I'll take a like-minded Muslim over an egalitarian any day.

    The large Muslim population within the Netherlands is a separate problem, which is manifestation of pluralism (promoted by egalitarians). The Dutch right is wrong is confusing tribalism with ideology, especially when nationalism ideology automatically leads to homogeneity.

    You are right. Erdogan is first and foremost a nationalist, just as all of the great Turkish leaders have been nationalists, following the example of Kemal Ataturk. Erdogan refused to let George W Bush have a Turkish front in the invasion of Iraq–a stance that might have garnered admiration among peace-loving people throughout the world, had it not been obscured and vilified by the neocon-dominated, fake-news MSM. Erdogan rejected Bush’s demands because he is a Turkish nationalist, and cannot bear to see his country used by America. His extremely high popularity is almost entirely due to his ardent nationalism, the same source of popularity tapped by Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump.

    Granted, Erdogan is religious, and wishes to bring Islam more into the fabric of the country, but his kind of religiosity is much more like the Boy Scouts’ “God and Country”, than the fanatical medievalism of ISIS and the Wahabis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Cato,

    It is rare when one comes across a really good article with depth on a specific subject. This is one of those. This is probably one of the best I've seen about the changes in Turkey being a reflection of the old-guard Sunni order as being revived by the Sufi brotherhoods that had gone underground during Ataturk's time, specifically the rise of the Naqshbandis. It also speaks about the interplay between them and some of the more modern Islamist movements, Gulen's group, etc.
    "This article is not a study of the policies of the Turkish government; it is an inquiry into the religious and ideological environment informing Turkish political Islam. Turkish political Islam, and with it Turkish politics, is increasingly based on powerful religious orders and brotherhoods, collectively termed tarikat and cemaat, respectively. These communities constitute the deep structure of Turkish power, and share a common ideological source: they belong to, or stem from, the Khalidi branch of the Naqshbandi Sufi order. While they differ from one another in interpretation and tone, the Naqshbandi-Khalidi groups have formed Turkish political Islam, and through the AKP, the Khalidi worldview has become the dominant political force in Turkey today."
    https://hudson.org/research/11601-the-naqshbandi-khalidi-order-and-political-islam-in-turkey

    It makes some mistakes like labeling Hanafis as liberal (very funny when Westerners try to impose their framework on ours to make sense of it) and is long, but it is well worth the read.

    Peace,
    , @Uebersetzer
    https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/03/17/report-around-2700-cases-filed-insult-charges-president-past-6-months/ Erdogan clearly not comfortable with his beauty, or rather popularity...
    , @Uebersetzer
    I think he's an Erdoganist, rather than a nationalist or even an Islamist. Staying in power and getting rich are his key motivations. Turkish nationalistic rhetoric is mainstream in Turkey and almost inevitable if you want to maintain a career in politics outside the frequently banned pro-Kurdish parties. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Erdogan makes frequent appeals to "the national will", but apart from this being a quite fascist turn of phrase, this is very much what Erdogan thinks the nation wants or should have. (He has said the "nation" wants the restoration of the death penalty. The nation probably does not want the current rising unemployment rate but I doubt whether he will try to legislate to prevent unemployment.)
    Erdoganism trumps religion, although manipulation of Sunni Muslim feeling has been key to his political success. This is considerably more than the shallow religiosity of the Boy Scouts. Last year he said on TV that he rejected the idea Nusra was terrorist despite its Al Qaeda allegiance, and covert support from Turkey to them is likely to be continuing.
  62. @kemerd
    No Sir, you are mistaken.

    Turkey has a long history of democratisation (about 200 years), and turkish society is secular and that is has always been so. Even the ottoman dynasty has never ruled by the Islam as it is understood today.

    In fact, Erdogan and his ilk and their understanding of islam is an anomaly for Turkey. And there is every indication that his rule and islamisation (sunni salafism, muslim brotherhood) of Turkey is another botched NATO operation to contain Turkish left which was rising steadily since 1950s and keep the country anchored to US interests. Erdogan himself knows this and he also knows that his masters has decided to let him go, that is probably the reason why is is so erratic and making overtures to Russia as if he wanted to change sides.

    In reality, the turkish ruling elite is anchored to the west and western values for at least 200 years, and they have no intention to change that. They just wanted a little bit of islam to contain the masses but Erdogan went one step too far in islamisation. The only reason Erdogan is still in place is that they want to replace him with a bit better optics and loyal but do not want to ruin the islamisation project that they nurtured for at least 50 years.

    The old “secularist” military elite in Turkey were not in practice all that secularist – they thought Islam had its uses. Kenan Evren, the general who led the 1980 coup and who died in 2015, was disturbed by the number of Marxist books in circulation in Turkey in the 1970s and thought bolstering Sunni Islam in publishing and more general political and cultural life would be a useful counter to this. In the late 1960s, knife-wielding gangs attacking leftists were often heard to shout “Allah Akbar” and it is likely that NATO generals as well as imams were mobilising them.
    Erdogan was part of a “moderate Muslim” project and significantly the Western liberal-left newspapers tended to give him and the AKP favourable coverage – he was “democratising” Turkey etc. It is really only since 2013 that such coverage had tended to be more negative.

    Read More
  63. Talha says:
    @Cato
    You are right. Erdogan is first and foremost a nationalist, just as all of the great Turkish leaders have been nationalists, following the example of Kemal Ataturk. Erdogan refused to let George W Bush have a Turkish front in the invasion of Iraq--a stance that might have garnered admiration among peace-loving people throughout the world, had it not been obscured and vilified by the neocon-dominated, fake-news MSM. Erdogan rejected Bush's demands because he is a Turkish nationalist, and cannot bear to see his country used by America. His extremely high popularity is almost entirely due to his ardent nationalism, the same source of popularity tapped by Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump.

    Granted, Erdogan is religious, and wishes to bring Islam more into the fabric of the country, but his kind of religiosity is much more like the Boy Scouts' "God and Country", than the fanatical medievalism of ISIS and the Wahabis.

    Hey Cato,

    It is rare when one comes across a really good article with depth on a specific subject. This is one of those. This is probably one of the best I’ve seen about the changes in Turkey being a reflection of the old-guard Sunni order as being revived by the Sufi brotherhoods that had gone underground during Ataturk’s time, specifically the rise of the Naqshbandis. It also speaks about the interplay between them and some of the more modern Islamist movements, Gulen’s group, etc.
    “This article is not a study of the policies of the Turkish government; it is an inquiry into the religious and ideological environment informing Turkish political Islam. Turkish political Islam, and with it Turkish politics, is increasingly based on powerful religious orders and brotherhoods, collectively termed tarikat and cemaat, respectively. These communities constitute the deep structure of Turkish power, and share a common ideological source: they belong to, or stem from, the Khalidi branch of the Naqshbandi Sufi order. While they differ from one another in interpretation and tone, the Naqshbandi-Khalidi groups have formed Turkish political Islam, and through the AKP, the Khalidi worldview has become the dominant political force in Turkey today.”

    https://hudson.org/research/11601-the-naqshbandi-khalidi-order-and-political-islam-in-turkey

    It makes some mistakes like labeling Hanafis as liberal (very funny when Westerners try to impose their framework on ours to make sense of it) and is long, but it is well worth the read.

    Peace,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cato
    Thanks, Talha, for the reference. I have sent it on to a few friends.
  64. gwynedd1 says:
    @Jason Liu
    It all seems like pointless infighting.

    Wilders and Erdogan are both right-wing nationalists. In the world's current state, they should be allies against the liberal world order. So what if the other guy is a Muslim? I'll take a like-minded Muslim over an egalitarian any day.

    The large Muslim population within the Netherlands is a separate problem, which is manifestation of pluralism (promoted by egalitarians). The Dutch right is wrong is confusing tribalism with ideology, especially when nationalism ideology automatically leads to homogeneity.

    Erdogan supports Turkish ethno nationalism in other states like the Netherlands. So that hardly makes him a compadre.

    Read More
  65. Svigor says:

    Speaking as someone who is both anti-war (wars of choice, that is – I’m not a pacifist) and anti-open-borders, my experience has been that opposition to wars of choice has been (going back decades, until relatively recently) mostly a thing of the political left in the past while anti-open-borders has been a thing of the political right, which is a major reason why the two positions were relatively rarely found together.

    Finding them together is arguably “relatively rare,” but almost always done on the right. E.g., the Stormfront crowd was 95% against (and the other 5% wasn’t in favor) Iraq Attaq II.

    Read More
  66. Karl says:
    @Uebersetzer
    A large section of Turks do have Western aspirations, and many of the stresses and strains in Turkey are the result of conflicting pulls - many arising from its geographical position. Late Ottoman sultans realised that the armed forces and civil service needed modernising because one lost war after another in the 18th and 19th centuries was showing up the empire's deficiencies. Significantly, most educated Turks despise Erdogan. Although they do not outvote the uneducated ones, many of whom venerate Erdogan, they are the the ones who make the society function at all.

    52 Uebersetzer > A large section of Turks do have Western aspirations

    As do quite a good fraction of Pakistanis. If you can keep them from becoming locally concentrated in their own neighborhoods, they will tend towards increasing westernization. This was the UK’s mistake…. allowing them to form their own ghettos.

    A country which was in dire need of quality immigrants might choose to learn how to refine the ore so as to extract the gold. In reality, there really is no country which is in ANY actual need of immigrants.

    Furthermore, you could harvest the migrants’ best years and send them back home in old age with a western pension (ie, nonimmigrant status, like Singapore does). Nowadays there is some VERY good quality-of-life in Lahore…. if you have a western pension. If I only had a US Social Security income, i’d certainly rather live in Lahore than in California.

    Read More
  67. @Cato
    You are right. Erdogan is first and foremost a nationalist, just as all of the great Turkish leaders have been nationalists, following the example of Kemal Ataturk. Erdogan refused to let George W Bush have a Turkish front in the invasion of Iraq--a stance that might have garnered admiration among peace-loving people throughout the world, had it not been obscured and vilified by the neocon-dominated, fake-news MSM. Erdogan rejected Bush's demands because he is a Turkish nationalist, and cannot bear to see his country used by America. His extremely high popularity is almost entirely due to his ardent nationalism, the same source of popularity tapped by Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump.

    Granted, Erdogan is religious, and wishes to bring Islam more into the fabric of the country, but his kind of religiosity is much more like the Boy Scouts' "God and Country", than the fanatical medievalism of ISIS and the Wahabis.

    https://www.turkishminute.com/2017/03/17/report-around-2700-cases-filed-insult-charges-president-past-6-months/ Erdogan clearly not comfortable with his beauty, or rather popularity…

    Read More
  68. @Cato
    You are right. Erdogan is first and foremost a nationalist, just as all of the great Turkish leaders have been nationalists, following the example of Kemal Ataturk. Erdogan refused to let George W Bush have a Turkish front in the invasion of Iraq--a stance that might have garnered admiration among peace-loving people throughout the world, had it not been obscured and vilified by the neocon-dominated, fake-news MSM. Erdogan rejected Bush's demands because he is a Turkish nationalist, and cannot bear to see his country used by America. His extremely high popularity is almost entirely due to his ardent nationalism, the same source of popularity tapped by Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump.

    Granted, Erdogan is religious, and wishes to bring Islam more into the fabric of the country, but his kind of religiosity is much more like the Boy Scouts' "God and Country", than the fanatical medievalism of ISIS and the Wahabis.

    I think he’s an Erdoganist, rather than a nationalist or even an Islamist. Staying in power and getting rich are his key motivations. Turkish nationalistic rhetoric is mainstream in Turkey and almost inevitable if you want to maintain a career in politics outside the frequently banned pro-Kurdish parties. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Erdogan makes frequent appeals to “the national will”, but apart from this being a quite fascist turn of phrase, this is very much what Erdogan thinks the nation wants or should have. (He has said the “nation” wants the restoration of the death penalty. The nation probably does not want the current rising unemployment rate but I doubt whether he will try to legislate to prevent unemployment.)
    Erdoganism trumps religion, although manipulation of Sunni Muslim feeling has been key to his political success. This is considerably more than the shallow religiosity of the Boy Scouts. Last year he said on TV that he rejected the idea Nusra was terrorist despite its Al Qaeda allegiance, and covert support from Turkey to them is likely to be continuing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cato
    Oversætter, I always appreciate your intelligent and knowledgeable comments on matters Turkish.

    Some of my friends believe as you do, that Erdogan is first and foremost for Erdogan. But I think that putting political survival first is mandatory for any successful politician (thus Trump is a Trumpist and Putin a Putinist). What matters is exactly how successful politicians put themselves first. As you suggest, Turkish politicians instinctively play the nationalism theme. But why is Erdogan more convincing and authentic when he does this than anyone from, for example, CHP? I think this is because Erdogan is a more sincere and passionate nationalist than any other major Turkish politician. And I think this explains why he is winning the votes of the ultra-nationalist former members of MHP.
  69. Cato says:
    @Talha
    Hey Cato,

    It is rare when one comes across a really good article with depth on a specific subject. This is one of those. This is probably one of the best I've seen about the changes in Turkey being a reflection of the old-guard Sunni order as being revived by the Sufi brotherhoods that had gone underground during Ataturk's time, specifically the rise of the Naqshbandis. It also speaks about the interplay between them and some of the more modern Islamist movements, Gulen's group, etc.
    "This article is not a study of the policies of the Turkish government; it is an inquiry into the religious and ideological environment informing Turkish political Islam. Turkish political Islam, and with it Turkish politics, is increasingly based on powerful religious orders and brotherhoods, collectively termed tarikat and cemaat, respectively. These communities constitute the deep structure of Turkish power, and share a common ideological source: they belong to, or stem from, the Khalidi branch of the Naqshbandi Sufi order. While they differ from one another in interpretation and tone, the Naqshbandi-Khalidi groups have formed Turkish political Islam, and through the AKP, the Khalidi worldview has become the dominant political force in Turkey today."
    https://hudson.org/research/11601-the-naqshbandi-khalidi-order-and-political-islam-in-turkey

    It makes some mistakes like labeling Hanafis as liberal (very funny when Westerners try to impose their framework on ours to make sense of it) and is long, but it is well worth the read.

    Peace,

    Thanks, Talha, for the reference. I have sent it on to a few friends.

    Read More
  70. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert

    @iffen -- How about if the West goes to zero immigration and we let those bountiful emigrant countries solve their own economic, political and social problems?
     

    @Talha -- And if the cost for a guarantee that the West will stop destructive policies and bombing and invading in the Muslim world is that Muslim immigrants must leave the West
     
    If the US stops all immigration subject to Talha's conditions, and all immigrants leave, I will guarantee you that the US society will come to a stand still and this big experiment will fail. Do you know that 61 percent of the graduate students in this country are immigrants? Immigrants supply doctors, engineers, teachers, and business professionals to this society. In other words, the immigrants make this country go. So you see, the US needs the immigrants for low skill jobs but also in the high skill professions.

    By the way, are the Jewish immigrants included in this ban as well?

    The USA would do just fine without immigrants. So would all the western countries. In 1924 the USA virtually ended immigration for over forty years. No catastrophe resulted.

    Read More
  71. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MEexpert

    That’s great for the universities’ endowment – so what? And that was where your statistics began, and ended.
     
    Obviously, you don't know anything about the universities. Your comment suggests that your upper chamber is empty. For your information, I have forgotten more statistics then you will ever learn.

    Yet you present none.

    Read More
  72. Cato says:
    @Uebersetzer
    I think he's an Erdoganist, rather than a nationalist or even an Islamist. Staying in power and getting rich are his key motivations. Turkish nationalistic rhetoric is mainstream in Turkey and almost inevitable if you want to maintain a career in politics outside the frequently banned pro-Kurdish parties. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Erdogan makes frequent appeals to "the national will", but apart from this being a quite fascist turn of phrase, this is very much what Erdogan thinks the nation wants or should have. (He has said the "nation" wants the restoration of the death penalty. The nation probably does not want the current rising unemployment rate but I doubt whether he will try to legislate to prevent unemployment.)
    Erdoganism trumps religion, although manipulation of Sunni Muslim feeling has been key to his political success. This is considerably more than the shallow religiosity of the Boy Scouts. Last year he said on TV that he rejected the idea Nusra was terrorist despite its Al Qaeda allegiance, and covert support from Turkey to them is likely to be continuing.

    Oversætter, I always appreciate your intelligent and knowledgeable comments on matters Turkish.

    Some of my friends believe as you do, that Erdogan is first and foremost for Erdogan. But I think that putting political survival first is mandatory for any successful politician (thus Trump is a Trumpist and Putin a Putinist). What matters is exactly how successful politicians put themselves first. As you suggest, Turkish politicians instinctively play the nationalism theme. But why is Erdogan more convincing and authentic when he does this than anyone from, for example, CHP? I think this is because Erdogan is a more sincere and passionate nationalist than any other major Turkish politician. And I think this explains why he is winning the votes of the ultra-nationalist former members of MHP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    I don't know about him being more convincing or authentic - it is more a case of his followers tending to be the more low-information part of Turkey's population, and rather sycophantic. (Karlin overdid it in his article recently about Turkey's rather low PISA rating, but there are millions of hicks from the sticks in Turkey and they tend to support the AKP.) Early last year, just a few months after shooting down a Russian plane, he made a speech denouncing Russia which I followed on TV. His followers chanted their approval in their somewhat sheep-like way. Late last year, after the coup attempt, he was now defending a pro-Russian line, ie. the diametrical opposite and again there were these sheep-like bleats from his followers. He is not so much sincere as able to turn on a dime almost without seeming to realise he has turned on a dime, and he is convincing because his followers are not exactly capable of critical thought.
    Erdogan does have a certain charisma and can work up a crowd, while his competitors are less successful, although Demirtas, currently in jail, has a certain Tsipras/JFK thing going.
    Erdogan is winning much of the MHP base because since mid-2015 he has been trying to, reducing Kurdish towns to rubble and bombing Iraq is part of that, although before that the MHP regularly accused him of selling Turkey to the PKK. The MHP is plagued by internal turmoil however, as some sections are hostile to Erdogan.
  73. @Cato
    Oversætter, I always appreciate your intelligent and knowledgeable comments on matters Turkish.

    Some of my friends believe as you do, that Erdogan is first and foremost for Erdogan. But I think that putting political survival first is mandatory for any successful politician (thus Trump is a Trumpist and Putin a Putinist). What matters is exactly how successful politicians put themselves first. As you suggest, Turkish politicians instinctively play the nationalism theme. But why is Erdogan more convincing and authentic when he does this than anyone from, for example, CHP? I think this is because Erdogan is a more sincere and passionate nationalist than any other major Turkish politician. And I think this explains why he is winning the votes of the ultra-nationalist former members of MHP.

    I don’t know about him being more convincing or authentic – it is more a case of his followers tending to be the more low-information part of Turkey’s population, and rather sycophantic. (Karlin overdid it in his article recently about Turkey’s rather low PISA rating, but there are millions of hicks from the sticks in Turkey and they tend to support the AKP.) Early last year, just a few months after shooting down a Russian plane, he made a speech denouncing Russia which I followed on TV. His followers chanted their approval in their somewhat sheep-like way. Late last year, after the coup attempt, he was now defending a pro-Russian line, ie. the diametrical opposite and again there were these sheep-like bleats from his followers. He is not so much sincere as able to turn on a dime almost without seeming to realise he has turned on a dime, and he is convincing because his followers are not exactly capable of critical thought.
    Erdogan does have a certain charisma and can work up a crowd, while his competitors are less successful, although Demirtas, currently in jail, has a certain Tsipras/JFK thing going.
    Erdogan is winning much of the MHP base because since mid-2015 he has been trying to, reducing Kurdish towns to rubble and bombing Iraq is part of that, although before that the MHP regularly accused him of selling Turkey to the PKK. The MHP is plagued by internal turmoil however, as some sections are hostile to Erdogan.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored