Kemal Ataturk 1938-2020: the World's Greatest 20th-century Statesman betrayed by Islamists, Pan-Turanianists & Kemalists

Kemal Ataturk 1938-2020:the World's
Greatest20th-century Statesmanbetrayed by
Islamists, Pan-Turanianists & Kemalists
Exploring theInexorable Constellation of Kemal Ataturk
A tribute in loving memory …
Contents
I. Several 20th-century Statesmen
II. What it takes to be a Statesman
III. The Dreadful Disaster that Kemal Ataturk averted
IV. Kemal Ataturk compared to Several Western Statesmen
V. Who was the Real, Historical Kemal Ataturk?
VI. Kemal Ataturk & Lenin: today's Islamists are closer to Lenin
VII. Kemal Ataturk, Islamic Spirituality, and the Secular Nature of the Islamic State
VIII. Kemal Ataturk and the Origins of his Spirituality: an Embarrassment for All
Western States and Secret Societies
IX. Kemal Ataturk and the Nature of his Accomplishments
X. Kemal Ataturk's Everlasting Legacy and Turkey's Betrayers
A – The Islamists
B – The Pan-Turanianists
C – The Kemalists
Many people consider Hitler as the world's greatest 20th-century statesman, but the
Führer (1889-1945) was still fighting when almost the entire territory of his earlier
expanded country was already invaded by foreign armies; if we don't take into
consideration the factors 'failure', 'results', 'endurance', 'posterity' and 'legacy' when
evaluating statesmen, then eventually anyone of them could be described as 'the
world's greatest statesman'.
I. Several20th-centuryStatesmen
Hitler's legacy was rejected in his own country by means of military victory of his
enemies, and Germany remains still occupied by World War II's victorious allies 75
years after Hitler's disappearance. This is not an example to follow.
Others show a predilection for an array of Communist theorists and dictators, finally
selecting one of them as the world's greatest 20th-century statesman: Lenin (1870-
1924), Stalin (1878-1953),Mao (1893-1976) or even Fidel Castro (1916-2016).The
differences among these undoubtedly influential personalities are great, but none of
them left enduring state structures, although all of them marked their times with
tumult. Lenin's theory about the dictatorship of the proletariat was swept away by
his successor; Stalin's appalling practices had nothing to do with anything written by
Marx, Engels, Lenin and many other theorists whose either incomprehensible or
debased concepts fascinated mostly those who never understood them; thank God,

Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971; Никита Сергеевич Хрущёв) terminated that lethal
legacy. And today, 29 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, only the inhuman
paranoids of today's totally corrupt American Left attempt to revive a most farcical
version of those statesmen's worthless concepts and absurd theories that evidently
disfigured and calamitously destroyed Russia.
Only 44 years after his death, Mao (毛泽东) has almost no place, even as a picture, on
the walls of Zhongnanhai (中南海),the Chinese Imperial Gardens that became the
headquarters of the Communist Party of China (中國共產黨), and on the walls of the
central government (State Council). Memorabilia from an almost totally forgotten
past, the hammer and sickle are by now amiable decorative themes for participants
to watch every five years in the otherwise meaningless and ceremonial, national
congresses of the CPC. In all of these cases of statesmen, legacy is tantamount to
irreverence.
Several other 20th-century statesmen are still revered for the political marketing
needs of the decayed states of Western Europe and North America: Roosevelt (1882-
1945), Churchill (1874-1965) or even the picturesque and tragi-comical figure of
Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970). Since the needs for this deceptive propaganda are
related to today's politics, one realizes quasi-automatically that these personalities
are still referred to by the criminal forgers of the Western World's mainstream media
and by the various representatives of the lawless regimes of the West only for the
commemoration of the 20th century's most nefarious and most disastrous event, i.e.
the allied victory in 1945. But for the outright majority of the Mankind,these
nonexistent statesmen, who were mere caretakers in times of war, are totally
insignificant or rather unknown.In fact,they left no legacy, because their deeds had
nothing ingenious, nothing innovative, and nothing inventive.
There were certainly important statesmen during the 20th c., but it would be absurd
to consider as great statesman someone who either introduced catastrophic
innovations or viewed his tenure as a mere service to the cause of an immoral and
inhuman regime's continuity – and this is the type of regime that prevailed in
England, the United States, and France during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
Neither can a statesman be viewed as great, if his deeds impacted negatively or even
disastrously vast parts of the world. In this sense, Georges Clémenceau (1841-1929),
Lloyd George (1863-1945), and Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) were as disastrous and
as ominous as Hitler or Stalin, because, due to their deeds, practices, choices and
decisions, more people were either involved in unnecessary strives, rebellions,
battles, and wars or oppressed and persecuted, killed and massacred in Asia, Africa
and Europe than those persecuted or killed by the aforementioned German and
Soviet statesmen. However, for the needs of generation comparison, one must admit
that the three Western statesmen of World War I were ostensibly superior to their
WWII counterparts.
II. Whatit takes to be a Statesman
All accounts made, a remarkable statesman must
i- accurately discern the environment in which he finds himself, see the past and the
recent developments in perspective, and identify exactly where they lead to, if no
other factors intervene and no effective reaction is undertaken,

ii- dissociate himself from a flawed, immoral, hypocritical,tyrannical, and nefarious
regime,
iii- identify the real, diachronic values of his culture and land, act accordingly, and
eventually reinstate them,
iv- demonstrate virtue as per the terms of his nation's historical traditions and moral
values,
v- become known for his ingenious choices, decisions and practices,
vi- deliver innovative and inventive approaches to the needs of his society,
vii- defend, promote, consolidate and expand national identity and cultural integrity,
viii- found, transform or restructure a state that will be exemplary, enduring and
based on Justice, Equality, Equity, Truthfulness, Solidarity, and Love,
ix- re-organize or re-engineer his society toward knowledge, wisdom, creativity,
productivity, equilibrium and tolerance,
x- promote individual initiative, amelioration and expansibility, and
xi- be an example in terms of accurate perception, conceptual and active thinking,
self-criticism, adaptability, and alternative option identification,
III. The Dreadful Disaster that KemalAtaturk averted
The search for the world's greatest statesmen is a quest for human advance. People
have the tendency to turn to sizeable or powerful states in order to identify great
statesmen; that's an extremely wrong practice. Across History, great states involve
basically unimportant rulers; the great sovereigns are an exception in the great states.
Either in a small or big country, a great statesman is certainly someone, who can go
against the stream, stop the decay, and reverse the trend. And this is exactly what
Kemal Ataturk did to the Ottoman Empire, which was abandoned for Türkiye
Cumhuriyeti (Republic of Turkey) to rise totally unrelated to, and absolutely
unaffected by, the otherwise agonizing caliphate's burdens, crimes, errors and
decadence.
Even among Turkey's most enthusiastic admirers and supporters of Kemal Ataturk,
today many fail to realize that, without Kemal Ataturk, the entire territory of Turkey
would be divided into many parts, which would be annexed and administered by
either local elites 'educated' (i.e. taught how to hate their own land andthose of the
neighbors) in Western capitals or the criminal colonial regimes of the West that were
setup by the historical enemies of Anatolia (i.e. the fake Popes of Rome, the Franks
and the Anglo-Normans) as per below:
a) a part of Western Anatolia, Eastern Thrace, and Constantinople (in thatcase not
Istanbul anymore) for Greece,
b) a part of Eastern Anatolia from Kars and Rize down to Malatya for Armenia,
c) a northeastern part of Anatolia for a minor coastal Pontus state,
d) a southeastern part of Anatolia for a multinational (Zaza, Turkmen, Kurmanji,
Aramaean Christian, Arabic-speaking, and Yazidi) state fallaciously called
"Kurdistan" (which would be plunged into interminable strife, war, oppression and
massacres),
e) a minor southern part (Antioch/Antakya) that would be disastrously placed
under French colonial rule, and
f) another southern part (from Mersin to Bodrum) under Italian mandate.
Even worse, the rest of the territory, i.e. the Central Anatolian plateau of Cappadocia
(which means ca. 25% of today's Turkey's territory), would be deliberately plunged

into incessant strives and civil wars generated by the colonial powers, which would
greatly utilize all the idiotic Muslim theologians, ignorant muftis, uneducated cadis,
uncultured sheikhs and lunatic imams for their colonial plans that all these cretins
had no chance in a billion to possibly identify, let alone oppose (as it happened in the
case of so many French and English colonies in Africa and Asia). Therefore, an
enormous ethnic cleansing, an atrocious genocide, and a real Christian Reconquista
in Anatolia would ensue (if Kemal Ataturk did not appear as a deus ex machina),
totally changing the face of the wider region between Italy and Iran, which was at the
time another great Islamic empire (under the Qajar dynasty) at the brink of total
collapse and disintegration, just like the Ottoman Empire.
All this was prevented only because of Kemal Ataturk.
IV. KemalAtaturk compared to SeveralWestern Statesmen
Through another viewpoint and in comparison with the other three great European
monarchies that collapsed in the aftermath of WWI, the founder of Modern Turkey
i) first, managed to save the inhabitants of the parts of the Ottoman Empire that he
controlled, namely he achieved to
a) thwart the colonial invasion, which would be disguised under the lawless and
criminal name of 'Mandate',
b) liberate the people from the burden of the past and from the darkness and the
ignorance of the Ottoman Empire, which had already fallen in decay since the end of
the 16th c. (date in which the Islamic Civilization ended),
c) rescue the people from the absurd and paranoid pseudo-Islamic theology of the
Istanbulite indoctrinated ulemas, and
d) fully rehabilitate and empower the people, thus making them able to compete at
the international level – in striking contrast with what happened in backward Syria,
Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, etc. whereby the compactimposition of Western
colonialism triggered all the chaotic reactions that ended up with Islamic terrorism.
and
ii) second, ensured that all the inhabitants of Modern Turkey avoided the following
disastrous conditions that befell on Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary:
a) the unprecedented persecution, the inhuman slavery, and the incredible horrors
and hecatombs that the criminal ruling minority of Soviet Union reserved for all the
populations of Czarist Russia that were not lucky enough to have the destiny of the
Baltic states and other western extremities of the Romanov realm,
b) the descent into the nether world that the Germans have experienced, after the
departure of Kaiser and until today, because Germany is still not an independent
state, because the country has been governed by an alien elite, which consists of
puppets of the Allied Occupation, and for this reason, this elite does not express in
any sense, let alone defend, the German national interests, and

c) the irrevocable pulverization of Austria-Hungary {which was dismembered and
its territory was distributed into twelve (12) states (as of today), after the lawless
treaties of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) and Trianon (1920): Italy (Tyrol), Slovenia,
Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Serbia, Romania,Ukraine,Czechia, Slovakia, Poland,
Hungary and Austria.
In other words, Kemal Ataturk's Turkey did not experience
- either the massacres and the destructions that took place in Germany (1919-2020)
and Russia (1917-1991)
- or the fragmentation that was imposed on Austria-Hungary after 1919.
Similarly with the territories lost to Austria, the Ottoman lands robbed by the
colonial powers (namely today's Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Jordan,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,Yemen, Qatar, and UAE) constituted the majority of the
Ottoman territory; however, in striking difference with the Central European
monarchy, the territories lost for the Sublime Porte ( ‫عال‬ ‫باب‬
‫ی‬ / Bab-i Ali) were
insignificant, marginal, and to large extent, they were empty deserts.
Kemal Ataturk died in Istanbul at 9:05 am of Thursday, 10 November 1938. How
symbolic! How impressively does it highlight the diametrically opposed world
concepts of Ataturk and Hitler! In fact, Ataturk died after the terrible Kristallnacht
was over! Since then 82 years have passed.
If the legacies of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are by now extinct, rejected and
mostly reviled, can one claim that the political heritage left by either the WWI
generation of colonial statesmen (Georges Clémenceau, Lloyd George, and Woodrow
Wilson) or their WWII counterparts (Roosevelt, Churchill and Charles de Gaulle) has
survived?
Although today's Western countries and sociopolitical elite pretend to represent a
continuity of sociopolitical, economic, intellectual and academic tradition, in reality
they serve purposes, they believe theories, they diffuse delusions, they promote
practices, and they implement agendas thatare at the antipodes of the world as
conceived, desired and respected by both earlier generations of Western statesmen.
Despite their fake claims that they respect freedom of speech, today's Western
statesmen prohibit free speech and penalize everyone, who denies the falsehood of
the so-called Holocaust and the forgery of the so-called Armenian Genocide. At the
same time, they conceal other, real (i.e. planned) and worse genocides, like the
Oromo Genocide carried out by the Amhara Abyssinians in Eastern Africa over the
past 150 years and the Turanian Genocide carried out in Russia over the past 450
years, after the Muscovite expansion undertaken by Ivan IV the Terrible (Иван
Грозный). The Western World's bogus-'freedom of speech' means that you demand
'freedom' for the 'Kurds' (who are not one nation, but many different nations, namely
Kurmanji, Zazaki, Bahdinani, Yazidi, Shabak, Sorani, Gorani,Faili, Ahl-e Haq,
Hawrami, Ardalani, etc.),but not for France's oppressed and persecuted nations, i.e.
the Basks, the Corsicans, the Catalans, the Occitans, the Alsatians and the Bretons.
Due to grave distortion of concepts, total disregard of values, and absolute
perversion of connotation, Western European bogus-freedom ended up in criminal

acts (abortion), abnormal practices (homosexual marriages), and corruptive
operations (adoption of children by homosexual 'couples').
Gender-based linguistic tyranny and demented dogmatism, mainstream media
dictatorship, social media degeneration, lifestyle debasement, educational
degradation, and finance capitalism laced with the idiotic Modern Monetary Theory
brought fourth destructive conditions of socioeconomic-sociopolitical life that would
have been totally denounced as defective, nefarious and inhuman by all the
aforementioned Western statesmen of the 20th c.
In other words, today's West has nothing to do with early 20th c.'s West anymore,
and the above mentioned WWI and WWII statesmen's heritage is null and void.
Contrarily to the Soviet Union and to Nazi Germany, Kemal Ataturk's Turkey still
survives; contrarily to the morally degenerated Western European and North
American states and societies, Kemal Ataturk's Turkey demonstrated impressive
resistance to social corruption, lifestyle decay, and cultural decomposition; and
contrarily to today's China, Kemal Ataturk's Turkey did not shift from Mao's version
of Communism to the mixed socialist market economy that Xi Jinping (1953-;习近平)
has successfully managed to keep in balance.
But has Kemal Ataturk's legacy survived?
V. Who was the Real, Historical KemalAtaturk?
Kemal Ataturk was not a man of theories, ideas, and words; he was a man of action,
deeds and effective practicality. Many theorists and ideologists wanted and tried to
implement concepts and ideas; but their effort ended up in monstrous deliveries
about which all realized that they were at astronomical distance from the original
thought. Contrarily to the delusional theories of these ominous persons and to their
calamitous implementations, there was never a theory or ideology such as
"Kemalism".
Kemal Ataturk did not write a treatise, did not compose any theory, and did not
elaborate an ideology about
- how 20th c. Muslims can best organize their societies and establish a pertinent
system of governance that will enable them to fully compete with the world's leading
states,
- the way Turkic nations can achieve national independence, comprehend historical
identity, preserve cultural integrity, set up a fully functional and efficient system of
governance, and establish an interstate organization,and
- the method through which Anatolia would synchronize with Western Europe and
North America in the early 20th c.
He wanted only to exactly implement the correct solution to an urgent problem that
would become lethal to vast populations: the problem's name was 'Ottoman Empire'.
As a matter of fact, Kemal Ataturk did not act based on text, program, ideology or
theory, and if we refer to his early conceptualization of a state and to its ultimate
implementation of the concept, we soon understand there is no such distance as the
chaos that separates Marx's theory from Lenin's adaptation of Marxism or even the

enormous space between Lenin's published works in the 1900s or 1910s and Lenin's
newly proclaimed state in early 1924.
Only 19.5 years separate Kemal Ataturk's death from his start as a statesman (his
disembarkment in Samsun: 19 May 1919 – 10 November 1938); but if one compares
his early speeches and the condition to which Turkey was risen few months before
the Halâskâr Gazi ('the victorious savior') died, one concludes that the founder of
Turkey delivered exactly what he promised. This testifies to an exceptional foresight
in terms of both, human nature and human society. Ataturk understood in full depth
the human being at the personal level, namely how humans function, act, perform
and react; and at the same time, he realized very well the human being at the
collective level, namely the way human communities tend to behave, operate,
produce, create and eventually destroy their own deeds and achievements.
There is a key point of differentiation: contrarily to all theorists, ideologists and
intellectuals, who rose to power, Ataturk knew exactly where each and every of his
decisions was leading to. As personal qualification, this outstanding trait can be
attributed to both, an innate talent and the formation of a military. Ataturk was the
Geometer of Governance.
Ali Rıza oğlu Mustafa (as his original name was back in 1881) graduated from the
Ottoman Military College (Istanbul) in 1905 and started then his legendary military
career that brought him to the four corners of the Ottoman Empire, before making of
him the great hero of Gallipoli in the portentous Battle of Çanakkale thatWestern
historiographers rather call 'the Dardanelles campaign'. Leading the Ottoman 5th
Army (along with Enver Pasha and the German General Otto von Sanders), the then
Mustafa Kemal Bey prevailed over the worldwide colonial military elite, namely the
English Ian Hamilton, Herbert Kitchener, John de Robeck, William Birdwood, and
Winston Churchill, and the French Henri Gouraud and Maurice Bailloud some of
whom were more than 30 years older than him, therefore having enormously richer
experience at the battlefield. Without a unique talent of foremost exactness of
movement, Mustafa Kemal Bey would have lost the battle or even been killed.
However, the innate vocation of the young Ali Rıza oğlu Mustafa became evident
quite earlier, notably when he enrolled at the Ottoman Military Academy (1899), and
even earlier, when at the age of 15 (in 1896) he enrolled in the Monastir Military High
School (today's Bitola in Macedonia). His inclination toward exactness, practicality,
effectiveness and discipline was however demonstrated as early as 1893, when atthe
age of 12, he took the entrance exam for the Salonica Military School (Selanik Askeri
Rüştiyesi).
Of all the other personalities suggested as the world's greatest 20th-century
statesman, only Charles de Gaulle was a career military. These people remind us at
times of the great conquerors of past historical periods; their world perception is
such that they believe utterly that their deeds and achievements speak for
themselves. In this regard, Kemal Ataturk is far closer to Timur (Tamerlane), to
Genghis Khan, to Caesar,to Alexander, to Darius I the Great, and other earlier great
Oriental monarchs.
These people never view life as related to human theories, baseless ideologies,
arbitrary doctrines, useless thoughts, or circumstantial feelings and desires; these

people live at a spiritually much higher level. They have -due to their intuition,
education, traditions and culture- a well-structured conceptualization of the world
and an accurate perception of the existing balance of power and of their abilities;
then, they set their absolutely realistic targets of action and they deploy their
maximum effort to achieve them. Last, to the aforementioned, they add their energy,
practicality, resourcefulness, persistence and commitment.
VI. KemalAtaturk & Lenin: today'sIslamists are closer to Lenin
Contrarily to Lenin's action, which was a mere translation of his unrealistic theories
and dogmatic ideology, Kemal Ataturk set his targets and tried to achieve them in
the easiest and shortest way. Practicality involves automatically a realistic and
accurate approach to and evaluation of every situation. Many opponents attempted
to denigrate Kemal Ataturk as an opportunist, but this is irrelevant, because
opportunism is related to theories, ideologies and efforts of materializing them. The
difference between Lenin and Kemal Ataturk already at the start was tremendous.
Lenin wanted to eliminate the czarist establishment, because of his own theory and
ideology. Lenin did not consider the czarist monarchy as impossible to improve and
unable to catch up with the rest of the great powers; simply he did not want the
monarchical system to improve, because he became captive of the theory about the
dictatorship of the so-called proletariat (a nonexistent, arbitrarily formulated, entity),
which he inherited from Marx and later expanded.
Quite contrarily, Kemal Ataturk wanted to improve, empower and strengthen his
country; he simply knew that the Ottoman Caliphate was an impotent and obsolete
institution, which -because of many reasons- was ostensibly damaging the future and
the potentialities of its inhabitants, while at the same time, it was totally impossible
to rectify and ameliorate. In fact, the Ottoman Empire was a dead corpse thatneeded
merely to be buried; because of its own numerous inadequacies, misperceptions,
misconceptions, malpractices, mistakes, and catastrophic inadaptability, the Sublime
Porte had become the Gate of the Hell for its unfortunate inhabitants.
Due to prevailing theological rigidity, doctrinal sterility, social counter-productivity,
intellectual enslavement, and economic impotence, the state of the sultans and
caliphs had reached its end - already long before Mustafa Kemal was born. But
Kemal Ataturk pursued his targets and fought for his cause, without theorizing
about the forthcoming end of the Caliphate. When a significant part of Kemal
Ataturk's targets were already materialized (1923), it became evident to all that the
Caliphate was already part of the past.
If one clearly understands the colossal difference between the empty and unwise
theoretician and the experienced and high-calibered military officer, one easily
comprehends how divergent their respective systems and methods of governance
were. When his theories proved unrealistic, Lenin was forced to start improvising;
and he did so constantly and in desperate search of a success that would never come.
Quite contrarily, Kemal Ataturk did not have to advance "one step forward,two
steps back" (шаг вперёд, два шага назад) like Lenin, but he went ahead like an
experienced military who knows the terrain.

This clarifies the present situation very well: today's Islamists are closer to Lenin than
to Ataturk. By being totally deprived of any sense (let alone practice) of Spirituality,
by incessantly desecrating a religion that they never understood and which they
currently ideologize as a Modern European political ideology, all groups of Islamists
only distort a cultural heritage that they never felt, studied or comprehended. So, all
of them, without understanding Kemal Ataturk's conceptualization of the world,
targets, achievements and legacy, renounce hysterically his deeds and exploits.
In fact, they are merely theorizing (like Lenin did), while being totally disconnected
from the down-to-earth reality. If they were able one day to get absolute power, they
would destroy Turkey in months, if not weeks. Czarist Russia and the disastrous
consequences of the October revolution are a very good example indeed. Similarly, if
Kemal Ataturk's Turkey were to end, immediately civil war, famine, massacres, and
chaos would ensue, not because of other powers' inimical stance to Islam (which is
the typical Islamist excuse) but due to the Islamists' absolutely unrealistic targets,
ignorance and paranoia.
Extremists of both sides, Islamists and atheists alike, have constructed a fictional
Kemal Ataturk against whom they have made of sorts of nonsensical reproaches and
to whom they have attributed all types of lies and distortions. Kemal Ataturk was
not a historian or a historian of religions, but he knew briefly and very accurately the
History of Islamic Caliphates, the Islamic search for Spirituality, the decomposition
of the Islamic religion across the centuries, its degradation into a worthless and
purely shameless theological system whose often evil proponents were able to
'justify' all monstrous deeds of ignorant, inhuman and criminal caliphs, sultans and
shahs. The utilization of the religion of Prophet Muhammad for the material and
often monstrous purposes of governance had become an extremely lenthy and
absolutely nauseating story.
Today's pathetic sheikhs, imams and theologians are illiterate enough to think that
Knowledge, Understanding,Perception and Wisdom need volumes of endless texts
to be achieved; this quantitative approach is a subtly and imperceptibly formed
misthought of materialistic nature that can easily destroy the Mankind. Supreme
human wisdom, accurate perception, deep understanding, and creative knowledge
pertain to Truth; only a qualitative approach to them allows humans to plainly attain
them. One man spends 100 years in the study of 100000 volumes and learns nothing
substantive, whereas another man during one initiation that lasts only few hours
learns much more; and a third man in a momentary intuition gets an otherwise
unreachable perception and overview of the spiritual and material reality. Real
wisdom is a transcendental faculty, not a mental-material(istic) apperception, and
this is so, because the mind is part of the body and therefore totally unrelated to the
soul of a man.
VII. KemalAtaturk, Islamic Spirituality, and the SecularNature
of the Islamic State
Kemal Ataturk did not reject Islam, but the petty and worthless Ottoman evildoing
in the name of Islam. As early as March 1924,at the Grand National Assembly of
Turkey (Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi), he meaningfully stated:

The religion of Islam will be elevated, if it will cease to be
a political instrument, as had been the case in the past.
It is very clear, through this brief sentence that, as per Kemal Ataturk's personal
evaluation and understanding, Islam hadbeen degraded into mere theological
fornication; there can never be a discussion about "elevation", if something has not
been degraded first.
Two days after Kemal Ataturk said this sentence, the degraded and God-damned
Islamic Caliphate was finally abolished (3 March 1924),after having already shrunk
into a wrinkled territory accommodating (in the early 20th century) less than 5% of
the world's Muslims, due to the decadence and the impotence of its worthless sultans
and to the deplorable ignorance and the evil dementia of its clueless sheikhulislams.
In total contradiction to the false theories and the historical distortions propagated
today by Western Orientalists and pseudo-Muslim Islamists alike, Kemal Ataturk
knew that there is a vast difference between spirituality and religion, and that Islamic
spirituality prevailed many times over Islamic theology throughout History, thus
changing the characterof the Islamic states, re-orienting them toward creativity,
inventiveness, originality and expressiveness in any field, from sciences to arts to
wisdom. Under those circumstances, which occurred in many different historical
periods (from the Abbasids to the Buyids, the Seljuk, the Ilkhanate, the Timurids, the
Safavids, and the Mughal to name a few), the real nature of the Islamic states was
secular, because the Shariah was not interpreted literally as per the modern pseudo-
Muslim Islamists' manner; then in these cases, the Islamic Law was stated and
recommended, but not imposed.
And indeed, Kemal Ataturk's state was not the first secular Muslim state; however
this topic is vast and goes beyond the limits of the present article. How Kemal
Ataturk envisioned the state that would substitute the decadent caliphate, which
were his sources of inspiration, and on what past traditions of Spirituality he was
based in order to materialize his targets we can understand only when we focus on
and study in-depth
- his formative years,
- his relationship with the great German mystic Rudolf von Sebottendorf (who had
recovered earlier lost keys of Bektashi-Qizilbash Spirituality, and also the rites of
other earlier Islamic and Oriental Orders),
- his total opposition to the Freedom and Accord Party (Hürriyet ve İtilâf Fırkası),
and
- his resolute distance from the new CUP (Committee of Union and Progress; İttihad
ve Terakki Cemiyeti / ‫جمعيت‬ ‫ترقى‬ ‫و‬ ‫إتحاد‬
‫ی‬ ) leadership (the 'three pashas').
However, all these topics have long remained taboo in Turkey and worldwide for
various reasons. The true presentation, in-depth analysis, and correct interpretation
of the aforementioned contacts and positions of Kemal Ataturk are by definition an
embarrassment for today's Turkey's main political entities, namely
- the Islamists, who -evoking but misinterpreting the Ottoman History- represent a
theoretical and ideological background that the last Ottomans totally rejected and
fully repudiated as heretic,

- the Pan-Turanianists, who constitute the direct offspring of the CUP (the three
pashas), and
- the Kemalists, who for many long decades obscured Kemal Ataturk's concepts,
targets, practices and heritage in order to subtly misinterpret them, adjust them to
their own interests and needs, and in the process, rule in his name, but in a most
opposite manner to his.
VIII. KemalAtaturk and the Origins of his Spirituality: an
EmbarrassmentforAll Western Statesand Secret Societies
At the same time, the true presentation, analysis and interpretation of the
aforementioned contacts and positions of Kemal Ataturk are an embarrassmentfor
today's Western regimes and the (severely conflicting with one another) forces,
lobbies, secret societies, and various Orders that control and use governments and
states, namely
1- the Zionists (all the different branches and groups), who identify in Kemal
Ataturk's concept of state (so, not exactly today's Turkey) the only powerful state
able to resume worldwide prevalence. All branches and groups of Zionism reviled
Rudolf von Sebottendorf's spiritual supremacy, because its results would cancel once
for all their power and targets. For this reason, they asked the help of the Apostate
Freemasonic Lodge, which is one of their allies, to disastrously disentangle Rudolf
von Sebottendorf's young disciple Adolf Hitler from his master's authority in the
early 1920s: if the German novice were to be effectively initiated, like the great
Turkish Bektashi mystic, Germany would become a totally different empire and no
other state would be able to oppose Berlin. In brief, Zionists were the cause of the
catastrophe thatbefell on them.
2- the Fake Freemasons of various pseudo-rites that operate at the antipodes of the
original Freemasonry, which after the mid-1930s has operated in a most surreptitious
manner, pending the anticipated fracture, demolition and disappearance of both, the
Fake Freemasons and the Zionists. These fake Freemasons operated against Rudolf
von Sebottendorf in the 1920s, infiltrated Thule Gesellschaft that he had founded,
totally distorted the rite and the works of the society, forcing the founder to leave
and leading the novices, the disciples and the other members to the materialistic
dementia of Nazism and to the paranoid practices of that evil political ideology. At
this point, one has to recall that the state founded by Kemal Ataturk involved no
politics and no ideology, which are perverse and inhuman endeavors that degenerate
governance and culture.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that, the various Islamist groups, which operate as
low level agents of either the various groups of Zionists or the different lodges of
today's desecrated Pseudo-Freemasonry, carry out an idiotic propaganda of
defamation of Kemal Ataturk, whomthey portray as Freemason, 'Jew' or Dönmeh
(i.e. a Sabbatean crypto-Jew hypocritically converted to Islam; as a matter of fact,
Sabbateans were believed to secretively perform the Kabbalist practices of Sabbatai
Zevi, despite their claim that they were Muslims). All this stands in total contrast
with the historical reality, because Kemal Ataturk closed all Freemasonic lodges in
Turkey (1935),a fact that shows how well informed he was about the degeneration of
most of the world's Freemasonic lodges into desecrated temples of blasphemous
Satanists. Actually, after losing control of Thule Gesellschaft in Germany, Rudolf von

Sebottendorf returned to Turkey and lived there for some years, before further
proceeding to Central Asia and Tibet.
3- the Jesuits, who supported to some extent the Pan-Turanianists after having
successfully infiltrated both, Freedom and Accord Party (Hürriyet ve İtilâf Fırkası)
and CUP (Committee of Union and Progress), although the latter had initially been
an outfit of the Fake Freemasonry in the 19th c. Ottoman Empire.
IX. KemalAtaturk and the Nature of his Accomplishments
As a brief commemoration of Kemal Ataturk's groundbreaking, innovative, and
resourceful accomplishments, one must point out the following:
A- Kemal Ataturk accurately discerned the widercontext in which he found himself,
assessed his forces,and identified where his limits were.
Kemal Ataturk did not advance against the territories of the French and British
mandates, not even up to Haleb (Aleppo) and Mosul, although his vision of state
could be fully implemented in Mesopotamia, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and beyond.
Kemal Ataturk realized that his new state needed time to be re-organized and re-
arranged, re-affirmed and fully homogenized. This understanding and this attitude
were also demonstrated in the case of Caucasus where all the Adjarians,Abkhazians,
Azeris, Circassians, Dagestanis and Chechens would very much welcome a union
with Turkey. And it was also shown as regards Iran, a country that has always been
home to Turanian nations because in reality Iran and Turan have been identical
throughout History.
B- Kemal Ataturk took gradually distance from his own state.
Seeing the ailing Ottoman Empire's impotency and proven disability to cope with the
imperative needs of contemporary states, Kemal Ataturk pursued his path and
advanced toward his targets for almost five years (1919-1924), thus fully dissociating
himself from the dying relic. By 1924, the state to which Kemal Ataturk belonged for
most of his life was reduced to just one useless building: the palace of the last sultan.
Compared with the groundbreaking deeds of the liberator and savior of Anatolia, the
state of the family of Othman was a hilarious joke!
C- Kemal Ataturk first identified the real, diachronic values of the Anatolian
Civilization, then acted accordingly, and finally reinstated all the various Anatolian
populations' shared values.
Kemal Ataturk placed the diachronic values of the Anatolian Civilization and
Culture at the epicenter of the new, contemporary society and secular state that he
instituted. The Village Institutes (Köy Enstitüleri) were only one of the methods
implemented to educate and update villagers, while also strengthening their
attachment to their common traditions, moral values, and Anatolian culture. About:
"Darülfünun'dan Köy Enstitülerine"
(https://www.ogretmensitemiz.com/egitim/koy-enstituleri-hakkinda-ataturk-ne-
diyordu-h6150.html)
"Darülfünun'dan Köy Enstitülerine - 10 kasım 2011 - www.TurkToresi.com"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L84Ae4lqKns
https://tr. wikipedia.org/wiki/Köy_enstitüsü
and notably: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köy_enstitüsü#Dersler
(The entry published in the English Wikipedia is improperly short, particularly
distorted, and absolutely useless, as it deliberately gives readers a minimal idea

about the topic, thus promoting the Islamist agenda that the secret services of the
colonial Western countries have set up.)
D- Kemal Ataturk demonstrated virtue as per the terms of his nation's historical
traditions and moral values.
This approach was highlighted in the Turkish Constitution of 1923. In the 1924
Constitutional Law Article 2, Clause 1, the following is stated: Türkiye Devleti,
Cümhuriyetçi, milliyetçi, halkçı, devletçi, lâik ve inkılâpçıdır. Many of the terms used
are almost impossible to easily understand, because they have ostensibly different
connotations than those attested in Western Europe and North America. This
becomes very clear in the definition of the term "milliyetçi" that many political
scientists with no background in History would simply translate as "nationalism",
which is absolutely confusing and totally meaningless. About:
Milliyetçilik – this principle has nothing to do with what is called ‘nationalism’ in
Central and Western Europe and North America. In striking opposition to West
European ideologies of racism, race superiority, chauvinism,and nationalism, in
Turkey it was declared that Türkiye ahalisine, din ve ırk farkı gözetilmeksizin
vatandaşlık itibarıyla Türk denilir (irrespective of religion and race differences,the
population of Turkey is called Turkish as regards the citizenship).
The use of the term Milliyet in Atatürk’s Turkey and in the Ottoman Empire is
completely different.In structural terms, this word of Persian origin (milliyet) was
used by the founder of Turkey as the word Ummah was used in the very early
periods of the Islamic Caliphate. It involves a supra-national community with a
common history within the same state.And this was said explicitly: ‘ortak mazi,
tarih, ahlak ve hukuk Türk milletini bir araya getiren değerlerdir’ (common past,
history, morality and law are the values that bring together the Turkish nation).
This has nothing to do with the evil notion of racial ethnic identity; it alludes to
cultural ethnic identity.
So, milliyetçilik means literally ‘supra-national identity founded on land-based
communal unity, shared historicity and integrity of cultural heritage’. This
connotation does not exist anywhere outside Turkey, and this is not a concept
particularity but full evidence of human superiority over the forces of darkness,
division and evilness of today’s inhuman elites.
Few people understood that it was quite normal for a great mystic like Mustafa
Kemal, who was neither a historian nor a philologist, to have this approach. The
constituent elements of the state that he had already envisioned (as a successive
form to the ailing Ottoman Empire) before 1919 had to encompass many ethnic
groups. As a matter of fact, when Atatürk took full control of Turkey’s territory, it
was still expected that more than a million ethnic ‘Greeks’ (i.e.Romioi – Rumlar)
would be Turkish citizens in the future. It is the Greek side at the Lausanne
Conference that came up with the proposal for the exchange of populations that took
place between Turkey and Greece in 1923-1925.
Furthermore, this approach to a ‘supra-national identity founded on land-based
communal unity, shared historicity and integrity of cultural heritage’ reflects
perfectly well the Celestial Order of the Oriental Empires, which was the
cornerstone of Rudolf von Sebottendorf’s universal vision of an Imperial State

enshrined in individual spirituality and human welfare as per the Ancient Oriental
Monarchical Model and the Assyrian Sargonid Originality.
Because the 20th century’s leading German hierophant, and mentor of Kemal
Atatürk, Rudolf von Sebottendorf remains an unknown figure to most, truly few
understand the uniqueness and the truthfulness of Turkey as a conscious supra-
nation rightful heir of more than 20 Oriental and Occidental, northern and southern
civilizations’ achievements and accomplishments. And this was eminently reflected
in Kemal Atatürk’s practices, as he rejected Pan-Turkism and Turanism as improper
falsifications able only to distort the historical reality and plunge Turkey into
chaos.
Turkey was geared to be the total rejection of the fallacious and unhistorical, racist
concept of racial purity, chauvinism, race superiority, skin color supremacy,
colorism and all the associate, nonsensical and evil constructions.
One can therefore understand that Hitler’s Germany was at the very antipodes of
Atatürk’s Turkey’s and this is due to the fact that the spiritual exercises and other
practices, the evocations, the divine conceptualization, the revelations of the Sacred,
the initiation rituals, the Spiritual Ontology, the Cosmology, the Moral Order, the
Royal Art, the Weltanschauung, the historical contextualization, and the
admonitions of imperial rule changed totally in the Thule Gesellschaft after the
organization was taken over by Anglo-Saxon fake Masonry, Zionists and other
Satanists.
From:
Turkey & 21st c. Geopolitics: the Advice I gave to the Turkish Establishment back in
the mid-90s
https://www.academia.edu/43110507/Turkey_and_21st_c_Geopolitics_the_Advice
_I_gave_to_the_Turkish_Establishment_back_in_the_mid_90s
https://megalommatis.wordpress.com/2018/12/01/turkey-21st-c-geopolitics-the-
advice-i-gave-to-the-turkish-establishment-back-in-the-mid-90s/
(notably in the part:
III. Factors that prevented the Turkish Establishment from timely Disentangling from
the ‘Western bloc’
B. The Real Meaning of the Six Principles of Kemal Ataturk’s State)
E- Kemal Ataturk became known for his ingenious choices,decisions and practices.
In this case, the introduction of the Latin alphabetfor the writing of Modern Turkish
was a truly ingenious decision that helped Turks become familiar with the major
European languages and learn them more easily than others do. Suffice it to compare
the German handwritings of a Turk and of an Egyptian or a Yemeni living in
Germany, and one understands immediately how far-reaching Kemal Ataturk's
innovations were. Turks during the 20th and 21st centuries have been more
conversant in European languages than the Arabic speaking people of Asia and
North Africa, despite the fact that Turkey was never colonized, whereas all the
former Ottoman provinces from the Emirates, Oman and Yemen to Eritrea,
Abyssinia and Algeria came under French, English or Italian control (which implied
obligatory courses of the colonizing power's official language in the local primary
and secondary education).

Because of this differentiation, the Turks have been used to learn foreign languages
in order to cope and compete with the great European powers (Russia, Germany,
Italy, France, England and Spain), whereas all Arabic-speaking people, who were
driven and dehumanized by the psychological complex of inferiority (which is a
form of colonial manipulation and cultural-educational-political maneuvering), have
been hating the languages of their colonial masters and either have not been learning
them at all or have not been learning them properly and impartially (and this has
been done deliberately, out of the hatred which has traditionally been implanted in
the pupils' minds at the primary and secondary education level).
Contrarily to the Turks, who benefitted from Kemal Ataturk's drastic changes and
have an identity, Arabic-speaking people have no identity at all or have a fake
identity, which is even worse. As a matter of fact, Arabic-speaking people are not
Arabs; they belong to totally different nations with very diverse historical, ethnic and
cultural backgrounds (Aramaeans in Syria, Lebanon,Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, SE
Turkey, SW Iran, Kuwait, Qatar,Emirates; Copts and Nubians in Egypt; Cushites
and Nubians in Sudan; Berbers in Libya and the Atlas region; Yemenites in South-
Southeastern-Eastern Arabian Peninsula).
Each of these different nations never managed to achieve a proper and adequate
nation-building because they were all confused with the fake, colonial ideology of
Pan-Arabism or Arab Nationalism. This development generated the chaotic situation
that currently prevails in countries like Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon,
Iraq – in striking contrast with whathappens in Turkey and Iran. About:
https://www.academia.edu/24440061/Arab_Nation_Hoax_Geared_to_Falsify_Isla
mic_History_Ruin_Varied_Nations_disfiguratively_Named_Arab_by_Prof_Muham
mad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
https://www.academia.edu/25491609/The_Aramaeans_rise_will_transfigure_the_
Middle_Eastern_Chessboard_2005_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommat
is
https://www.academia.edu/25552905/Islam_the_Cultural_Aramaization_of_the_A
rabs_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
https://www.academia.edu/25553198/Aramaeans_vs_Arabs_The_fight_between_C
ivilization_and_Barbarism_within_Islam_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megal
ommatis
https://www.academia.edu/26064731/Why_Former_Ottoman_Provinces_cannot_b
ecome_Proper_States_By_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
F- Kemal Ataturk delivered innovative and inventive approaches to the needs of his
society.
Of course, entire books have already been published to narrate and analyze the
numerous changes (devrimler) introduced by the founder of Turkey. However, it
must be pointed out that the historical evolution from Caliphate to Cumhuriyet
(Republic) was not just a state transformation or renewal, but an overwhelming
replacement. Kemal Ataturk created his own state,and when the Caliphate could not
function anymore, Turkey as a new state substituted the useless relic of the sultans
and caliphs.
Beyond the aforementioned, Kemal Ataturk's most seminal, most ingenious and
most trailblazing reversal was the termination of the old, Ottoman capital city and
the proclamation of Ankara as the capital of the new state. The ominous, calamitous

and dire role played for almost 1600 years by Constantinople – Istanbul was over,
and the disastrous, ill-fated and accursed city was thrown once for all into the abyss
of obliterated solipsism. Thanks to the founder of Turkey, the city that destroyed two
great empires was forever condemned to permanently remain an otiose vestige of the
past.
G- Kemal Ataturk defended, promoted, consolidated and expanded national identity
and cultural integrity.
A great number of people in Turkey and abroad misunderstood Kemal Ataturk's
innovations and considered them all as a form of intentional and comprehensive
Westernization (or Occidentalization). This is actually a grave mistake and a serious
misunderstanding or eventually a purposeful distortion. The founder of Turkey was
neither a Westerner nor a Germanophile (or a Francophile, an Anglophile, etc.).It is
misleading to believe that Ataturk 'admired' the Western progress or that he was
enthusiastic about the Western culture. He simply viewed the world in pragmatic
terms. What does the expression "pragmatic terms" mean?
This is what all the Islamists do not want to see, let alone understand. It is however
very simple: in just 400 years, from 1500 to 1900, England, France,and Russia, which
were smaller, weaker in every sense, poorer, less developed, less educated and less
civilized than the Mughal Empire of South Asia, the Safavid Empire of Iran, and the
Ottoman Empire in 1500, expanded and in 1900,became larger, stronger,richer,
more developed, more educated and more civilized than the aforementioned three
Muslim empires. Even worse, the three northern European states during the said
period expanded at the prejudice of the three Muslim states, dismantling already one
of them (the Mughal Empire), dangerously destabilizing and remarkably reducing
the second (Qajar Empire of Iran), and comfortably and irreversibly decomposing the
third (i.e. the Ottoman Empire, which in 1900 controlled already less than 50% of the
territories that it possessed in 1790). The destruction of the Muslim Empires was so
extensive and so detrimental that it would be suicidal for Muslims to pretend that
nothing happened and that they could continue with their stupid theology and their
useless Sunna. This is viewing the world in pragmatic terms.
In 1920, Turkey had by definition to compete with the countries that were advanced
in terms of scientific knowledge, industrial technology, socio-economic organization,
civic discipline, and behavioral adaptation. There could not be any other choice:
either the Turks would follow this path or ultimately every ignorant and idiotic
religious leader or theologian (let alone low level 'politician') would end up as slave,
lackey or puppet of the colonial powers without even understanding it.
However, this approach does not mean that Kemal Ataturk introduced Western
European or North American customs, "because he wanted to change or eliminate
the traditional Turkish culture" (as his irrelevant critics have always pretended);
actually, the founder of Turkey did not try to copy and paste habits and lifestyle. On
the contrary, he selected the essential, the functional and the necessary elements of
Western behavior and scrupulously adapted them to the socio-cultural context of
Anatolia (and he did exactly the same as regards the system of governance that he
launched). In 1935,the average Turk was more "European" than the average Russian,
Bulgarian, Romanian,Albanian – let alone Greek. As an eclectic thinker, Ataturk
simply wanted the Turks to be able to perform like the Germans, to be free of the
incommensurate complex of inferiority of the Egyptians and other Arabic speaking

people, and to be acquainted with the customs, practices, andformalities of the
world's most advanced nations.
Any Turk traveling to Central and Western Europe for studies, research or work in
the 1920s would make a ludicrous spectacle if dressed in the old Ottoman fashion.
How could Turkey cope economically and financially with the world's advanced
countries, if the Turkish companies, banks and stock exchange did not function
according to the Western standards of Free Market economy? It was therefore totally
impossible for the workweek in Turkey to break for one day (namely Friday), due to
traditions that were the reason of Ottoman Empire's decay and collapse;ultimately
Friday had to become a working day. The question when a Muslim will find some
time to pray is his strictly personal affair – not the affair of the society, the state or the
government. Companies cannotafford to accord 'break time' for prayer, because in
such a case, the employee's mind is stuck in unnecessary topics unrelated to work
and performance indices.
There is a Modern Turkish word (constructed by Kemal Ataturk's grammarians) that
helps realize which the top priority was for the founder of Modern Turkey: "çağdaş".
This constructed word means 'contemporary' and also 'up-to-date'.The word became
also a personal name for men and women in Turkey, and it is quite indicative of the
effort made by the secular establishment of Kemal Ataturk for the entire nation to get
disentangled from obsolete structures and ineffective manners that engulfed the
Turks in worthless forms of pseudo-religion. About:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/çağdaş and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çağdaş
The combination of traditional Anatolian Turkish culture preservation and scientific,
technological, educational and socio-economic modernization is characteristically
described in the title of a leading article published by the influential Prof. Erol
Manisalı in Cumhuriyet (24 July 2018):"Atatürk’te zeybek, tango ve ‘yön’" («In
Atatürk, there is zeybek, tango and 'direction'»).
https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/erol-manisali/ataturkte-zeybek-tango-
ve-yon-1035324
H- Kemal Ataturk founded a state in which every inhabitant was treated as equal
with the rest and on the basis of justice, equity and solidarity.
Until its final collapse, the Ottoman Empire was the shameful realm where the
brothers of a new sultan were almost institutionally massacred (for fear of eventual
rebellion), the harem's nauseating intrigues impacted many important state affairs
(obviously catastrophically), the idiotic, ignorant and biased theologians scrutinized
the sultan's decisions (with disastrous results as it could always be expected), and the
overwhelming majority of the population (Muslim, Christian or other) was viewed
as a mere tool for tax extraction and any furtherutilization. Following the disastrous
model of the so-called "bureaucratic byzantinism", the Istanbulite theological circles
consisted in a real cancerous tumor, as they treated the empire's populations in a
most disgraceful manner, as if human lives mattered only when compatible with
their targets.
The iniquitous, partial, mendacious, utilitarian, and perverse nature and intentions of
the Istanbul theological institutions were such that all the influential Ottoman
theologians intended to rule the Empire by

a) tyrannically imposing their pseudo-Islamic fallacy on the Anatolian populations,
which -being the vertebral column of the Ottoman Empire- vehemently rejected the
Istanbulite meaningless theological doctrine and preserved their Islamic spirituality
(being organized in Orders like the Mevlevi and the Bektashi),
b) viciously exploiting the Anatolian populations economically and militarily, and
c) incessantly oppressing, persecuting and eventually deporting them. This situation
alienated the bulk of the Anatolian populations up to the extent thatthis situation
contributed to the debilitation of the Ottoman state.
In other words, the same pattern that caused the collapse of the Eastern Roman
Empire impacted also the Caliphate during the Ottoman times. The Patriarchate of
Constantinople had tremendously contributed to the devitalizing and impairing the
imperial state, because of its ceaseless religious-spiritual clash with the Anatolian
populations that rejected the pseudo-Christian fallacy of the Constantinopolitan
theologians. There were ceaseless revolts, unbearable Constantinopolitan oppression
of the Anatolian populations, interminable massacres, and all forms of tyranny
carried out by the every now and then dispatched imperial guards; atthe end, the
Eastern Roman Christian Anatolian populations accepted Alp Arslan and the Seljuks
as true liberators. The exactly same story occurred in Ottoman Anatolia with the
Şahqulu (Şahkulu) movement, the Bektashi, the Qizilbash, and the Mevlevis.
With Kemal Ataturk, Anatolia finally took its well-deserved and most necessary
revenge over the elites of the caliphate's capital. In 1924, thank God, all the imperial
magistrates and potentates were reduced to the level of every simple farmer and
cattle-keeper of Anatolia.
I- Kemal Ataturk re-engineered the Turkish society toward knowledge, wisdom,
creativity, productivity, equilibrium and tolerance.
It was clear that, if the state itself was to be replaced by a totally different structure of
governance, the society would have to be fully transformed, so that the inhabitants of
the country be in a position to duly cope with the totally new environment and to
effectively perform under the new rules. This was an experiment that Kemal Ataturk
undertook without an ideology as a point of reference; this is another important
point of differentiation between Lenin and Ataturk.The former had already written
articles, speeches and books as to how to organize the state (the dictatorship of the
proletariat) that he wanted to impose by using the support of the communist party –
or of a faction of it, to be accurate. But when Kemal Ataturk liberated the country
from foreign thugs, gangsters and invaders, no one knew what orders, measures,
rules, and changes he would introduce. No one was able then to assume when this or
that new law and measure would be launched and in what order the new rules
would be introduced; and the founder of Turkey had never written before even a
brief note or a list of the groundbreaking measures that were necessary to implement
in order to remove the Turks from the Ottoman apathy and the "Islamic" putrefaction
in which they found themselves.
Kemal Ataturk made it clear that human life has no value, if productivity and
creativity do not characterize the activities and the targets of the human being. He
wanted to take Turks out of the counterproductive, useless, abnormal and lethargic
lifestyle that the Ottoman theologians had imposed whereby it was 'enough' for
every Muslim to make five prayers per day, fast during the daytime in Ramadhan,
carry out few more tasks and then live without discipline, target and commitment.

However, the founder of Turkey was a moderate and balanced person,and thanks to
this fact, his new country did not live atrocious and inhuman situations like the
Soviet Stokhanovism; the Communists used to denounce the exploitation of humans
by other humans, but did indeed exploit humans more than any other tyranny did in
the History of the Mankind. In fact, the USSRhad to wait until Nikita Khrushchev
launched the de-Stalinization era in order to get rid of the useless medals "За
трудовую доблесть" that bear witness to dehumanized beings reduced to robot-like
lives for the sake of the state and its profitability.
With Ataturk, illiteracy was almost totally erased from Turkey; knowledge, science
and education took central part in the life of a society 'en pleine mutation'. Contrarily
to the 19-year span of time when the Halâskâr Gazi was in power(1919-1938), the
supposedly 'Islamic' society of the Ottoman times was gradually plunged into abject
misery, despicable illiteracy, pathetic ignorance, and abysmal darkness, despite the
fact that Islam, as religion, promoted knowledge over absurd belief, investigation
instead of blind acceptance,and learning instead of lethargy. In fact,after 1580,the
Ottoman Empire regressed instead of progressing.
Although, in the early 16th c., the Ottoman Empire was the inheritor of an entire
millennium of Islamic Civilization, which was in fact the first World Civilization that
encompassed the spiritual, cultural, moral, intellectual, scholarly, scientific and
artistic heritage of all earlier civilizations, after the middle of the 16th c., the so-called
'Sunni Islamic' theological cholera prevailed at the level of the Istanbulite-Ottoman
society and governance, notably during the reign of the gullible, suggestible Murat
III (1574-1595). The prevalence of those theological circles in the Ottoman court
brought forth the irrevocable demolition, elimination and expiration of the Genius of
Islamic Civilization.
Ignorant people, who should have been killed as enemies of the Mankind, the then
theologians, sheikhs, imams, etc. became influential in the Ottoman court, and due to
their disastrous choices and utter paranoia, every scholarly-scientific exploration,
every intellectual investigation, every artistic innovation, every conceptual re-
evaluation, every transcendental reconfiguration, and every spiritual meditation
were prohibited and labeled as "black magic", "sorcery", "witchcraft" and the like.
Those backward and silly fools considered as "evildoing" everything that they did
not know, and due to their barbarism, they put an end to spirituality, sciences, arts,
culture and civilization within the Ottoman Empire. After 1580 and the destruction
of the Istanbul Observatory by the fanaticized mob that was guided by these evil and
asinine theologians and imams, Islamic Civilization is considered defunct. It was
only normal for the Ottoman Empire to progressively collapse and disintegrate
afterwards, since its inhabitants were forced to live as per the inhuman orders that
derived from the moronic Sunna-doctrine of the uneducated theologians who
prohibited any other education than theirs.
In only 19 years, Kemal Ataturk overwhelmingly and spectacularly reversed this
350-year enduring, deplorable and self-disastrous situation; in this regard, his
undertaking was far more difficult, far more unconventional, and far more
staggering than Lenin's, because the founder of Soviet Union did not find Czarist
Russia in a state of long decadence but only of slow rise, progress and modernization

in comparison to Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the countries of Western Europe
and North America.
J- Kemal Ataturk promoted individual initiative, amelioration and expansibility.
There is one key point in which Life was not fair to Kemal Ataturk: he died very
early. The founder of Turkey was only 57, when he passed away.Had he lived
another 20 years (which is a modest estimate of life expectancy) we would have got a
far more complete understanding of his vision, achievements, mindset, world
conceptualization, and stance toward majorworld events (notably WW II, the Cold
War, the so-called decolonization process, etc.).Speaking of Kemal Ataturk, few
realize that in his time, there was no India, China was occupied by Japan, and the
entire African continent was still divided in colonial zones (French, English, Italian,
Belgian, Portuguese and Spanish).
Although the founder of Turkey dedicated most of his time after 1922 to the
implementation of the changes that he introduced, we still do not have a complete
idea about his view of the human being and about the extent to which he wanted to
carry out a deep personal transformation in every Turk. Many scholars, historians,
political scientists, intellectuals, analysts and commentators published thousands of
books and articles about Ataturk as the founder of a brand new state,as the social
transformer of Modern Turkey, and as the supreme educator of his nation. But no
one viewed in the founder of Modern Turkey the spiritual mentor of every Turk and
of every human.
At this point, we can accept that Ataturk did not only want to found a new, lawful,
competent and effective state with social solidarity and free market economy, but he
also desired to invigorate the average Turk and make him an unrestrained, extrovert,
daring and entrepreneurial person well versed in taking risks and gambles for the
benefit of his career, business, expansion and commitment. For Kemal Ataturk, every
Turk's best contribution to the national cause would be his own personal initiative in
every field he would prefer to express his initiative, dynamism and inventiveness.
We can therefore conclude that the founder of Turkey had exactly the same idea and
the same wish for every human anywhere on Earth, if we take into consideration his
famous motto (first said in one speech given in a town in Anatolia on the 20th April
1931) "Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh" (Peace at Home, Peace in the World), which proves
that Ataturk evidently demonstrated a sheer interest not only in Turkey but also in
the world affairs.
This critical trait was not however visible during the tenure of Ataturk's ineffectual
and uncharismatic successors, starting with Ismet Inönü and the cursed figure of
Adnan Menderes. With the catastrophic and totally treacherous introduction of
Western 'politics' in the governance of Turkey, with the constant involvement of the
army in the politics, and with the untrue, mean and unreliable character of many
'Kemalists', after 1938 Turkey was progressively transformed into a bureaucratic
state in the epicenter of which there was an enormous military-industrial complex.
This situation was totally opposed to Kemal Ataturk's vision of Turkey and harmed
the average Turk enormously, by reducing him to a docile citizen who was asked to
blindly obey the orders, the routine, and the Kemaluist doctrine of the public sector's
officials, who were in reality at the very antipodes of Ataturk. The gradual (1940 -
1970) bureaucratization of Turkey was one of the heaviest blows made against the
state founded by the Halâskâr Gazi and a real disgrace to his memory.

K- Kemal Ataturk was an example in terms of accurate perception, conceptual and
active thinking, self-criticism,adaptability, and alternative option identification.
From the aforementioned, one can safely hypothesize that Kemal Ataturk was not a
dogmatic person; contrarily to his idiotic opponents, who are manipulated by the
colonial Western powers without even understanding it, the founder of Modern
Turkey was a balanced and tolerant person, known for his temperance and for
accepting constructive criticism. Although he was a man of strong convictions, he
knew very well that the best way to reconfirm the validity of one's own arguments
and decisions was to continually challenge them by examining several experiments.
Ataturk experimented potential alternatives to several issues quite often and at times
in cases of very serious and critical topics; the form of the state that he instituted was
one of them!
The text itself of the Constitution of 1923 makes it clear that the founderof Turkey
was convinced that a state made, manned and controlled by the people, governed
and administered truthfully for the people, and advanced in parallel with the people
(i.e. the entire society) should have the social support of only one organization, in
which every person could become a member and every opinion could be debated
sincerely. Contrarily to the disreputable constitutions of tyrannical Western states,
which are shamelessly masqueraded as "democracies",Turkey's first and only real
constitution did not allow any separate group of people to have the chance of
separating themselves from the rest, the possibility of forming a fake and always
unnecessary 'opposition', and the ability of cheating or deceiving others, let alone the
outright majority, by means of debased and absurd theories, pathetic 'political ideas',
comical and evil ideologies, and the nonsensical doctrines of the racist Western
intelligentsia.
This testifies to two critical points:
First, Kemal Ataturk knew thatthe so-called modern democratic multiparty system
is a permanent fallacy, an inhuman deception, and an evil distortion that severely
harms the societies, misrepresents the people's will, and ends up as a concealed form
of monstrous tyranny. This is due to the fact that in the governance of a society there
cannot be any ideas, theories or ideologies involved, because these mental endeavors
consist in overwhelming misrepresentation of the reality, and as such they divide the
unsophisticated people, who need no theories and no ideologies to duly perceive the
reality and then normally live their lives.
Governance relates to reality; theories and ideologies are unreal fantasies and
unrealistic fallacies of every eventually counter-productive or paranoid individual
whose unnecessary assumptions and disastrous projections confuse the entire
society. In any case, the paradoxical and deceitful scheme of 'political parties'
reflecting falsely different ideologies (that are all equally impracticable, fictional and
inhuman) is a modern times' neologism and aberration thatdid not exist in any
previous systems of non-monarchical states. That's why Turkey's Constitution of
1923 did not provide any details as regards the absolutely unnecessary establishment
of various so-called 'political parties', simply because the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi
(Republican People's Party, founded on 7th September 1919) was the venue of all
Turks, thus automatically canceling the dispensable 'need' for any 'other' party, let
alone an 'opposition'.

Second, the aforementioned situation clearly demonstrates how fake, wrong,
mendacious and evil are all of today's critics of Kemal Ataturk, when accusing him
for having 'westernized' Turkey. The founder of Turkey did not 'westernize' but
merely updated his society, empowering Turks with perefct tools of governance that
guaranteed success in the effort of catching up with the technologically developed
countries of the West; he did not copy any Western political system. Quite contrarily,
he prevented Turkey from becoming a socio-political, 'republican', contamination
like the US or France. When Ataturk launched his ingenious and multifaceted
program, there were many non-monarchical states in Europe and America,which
consisted mostly in multiparty establishments. However, these states were not
accepted by Ataturk as trusted models or acceptable paradigms.
The example of Italy's 1923 elections (or parody of elections) was certainly studied
very well by the man who conceived the pillars of Turkey's Constitution of 1923;
Turkey would not need either a Benito Mussolini or a Giacomo Matteotti. All people
could express their own opinions within the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, exactly
because it was the venue for all the people (halk). This shows very well that Kemal
Ataturk was not someone limited to mere copying & pasting Western systems and
practices, but he introduced his own, new, andgenuine system that best suited the
Turkish nation of Anatolia.
However, despite Kemal Ataturk's evident predilection for a one-party system of
social organization and governance, he willingly accepted to test how a second party
would function within the context that he had just established. This shows that he
always examined various alternatives in diverse issues. As a matter of fact, in 1930,
the founder of Turkey asked the former Turkish ambassador to France Ali Fethy
Okyar to take the initiative and launch a new party, which would offer an alternative
viewpoint on, and a different venue for, debates pertaining to Turkey's social
organization and governance. Consequently, soon afterwards, Okyar established the
Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Liberal Republican Party) as a party of constructive
opposition.
The experiment was quite indicative; within few months, the cancerous tumor of
backward, ignorant and blind Islamists, i.e. Kemal Ataturk's earliest opponents,
enrolled in the new party and gathered there in order to voice their paranoia. These
Islamists were filthy liars and hypocritical crooks, who did not give a damn about
the ideas of liberal economy that the party founder wanted to promote with the
support of Kemal Ataturk. These Satanic Muslims could cooperate even with the
most squalid demons in order to express their sick hatred against the founder of
Modern Turkey. Inevitably, even before the end of the year (!), Ali Fethy Okyar
decided to close down the ill-fated party, before these uneducated gangsters
managed to spit their ideological, pseudo-religious venom and impair the new, free
and moral society that was being formed at the time. In Kemal Ataturk's Turkey no
one had the right to contaminate the entire nation by shamelessly uttering silly
sentences of the type: "democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop,
you get off".
Indiscriminate freedom of speech is the worst enemy of the Mankind and the
bitterest adversary of Human Freedom. Why this is so is easy to grasp: there is no
freedom beyond the limits of Moral. Freedom is only a moral value; without Moral,
there is no freedom. Otherwise, the Mankind will sail adrift and, after the immoral,

absurd and totalitarian pseudo-concept of "indiscriminate freedom of speech" is
imposed worldwide, humans will be asked to also revere the freedom of murder.
The fallacy of the modern Western tyrannies, which are euphemistically called
'democracies', is a vast topic that evidently goes out of the scope of the present
article. However, the aforementioned example clearly shows that Kemal Ataturk,
although he had the foresight to understand that multi-party system and partisan
differentiation on the basis of various nonsensical ideologies is an absurdity and a
deception, he gave it a try and wanted to check how a multi-party system functions
in the daily life.
X. KemalAtaturk's Everlasting Legacyand Turkey'sBetrayers
Many people presently believe that the most determined enemies of Kemal Ataturk
have been the various branches of Islamic Fundamentalism, Extremism, Radicalism,
and Terrorism, i.e. the tenebrous realm of Political Islam, Wahhabism, and the other
ramifications of today's fake Muslims. But this is only a superficial reading of
Modern Turkey's History.
A – The Islamists
Every paranoid, who imagines that it is possible to establish today a state based on a
modern theological interpretation of Islam (or any other religion), cannot be the
enemy of anyone else except himself. The world of the Islamic Caliphates (as long as
they were not in decay or coma for some centuries) and the modern world are two
totally separated universes that have nothing in common and can never meet, let
alone amalgamate. This was already known to Kemal Ataturk; that's why he relied
on Islamic princples, values and culture to create something new, authentic and
absolutely Islamic, Anatolian and Oriental of nature.
The dogmatic idiots, who think it is possible to change Turkey, will see their own
destruction with their own eyes; these ignorant people, like Turkey's post-2002
parliamentary and presidential fake majorities (produced through electoral trickery
and foreign interference in the backstage), in their fanatic and berserk effort to put an
end to "secular Turkey" and substitute it with their fictional "Islamic Turkey", will
simply be left with no ….. Turkey at all! Then, it will be too late for them to regret
and repent.
All states are structures erected as per their own particular rules; when these rules
are breached, the structure falls apart.There is no need to wait for a conqueror, who
will destroy a state, when the structure ceases to serve its purpose and to be what it
was geared to be. In today's world, contrarily to the Pre-Islamic Antiquity or to the
times of the early caliphates, there is no vacuum left across the Earth. This parameter
changes everything, because if a state falls apart nowadays, there will be no chance
for rehabilitation and reunification; there will be either permanent division and strife
(as in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc.) or loss of territory (USSR).
Although colonial fabrications and pseudo-states, like Egypt, Pakistan, India, Sudan,
Algeria, etc., can eventually be multiparty 'democracies', 'one-party' tyrannies,
military dictatorships, religious-theological autocracies, 'constitutional' monarchies
or lawless despotic realms, a genuinely new and innovative state structure cannotbe
re-engineered. This happens because all pseudo-states constructed by the colonial

powers were programmed in a way to best suit the variable interests of their colonial
masters and consequently, they never had a proper infrastructure. These fake states
never were (and they can never be) proper states, because they were geared to be
mere caricatures of states, able to be transformed as per their masters' desires.
Contrarily to these pseudo-states, the USSR could never be re-engineered, and that's
why it fell apart, and Russia lost an important part of its territory. Similarly, the US
cannot be reinvented. And Western European 'democracies' cannotbe restructured.
For some decades, it was thought as possible that Communists could eventually rise
to power in some of these Western European states (Italy, France, Portugal), but this
would simply imply that these states would fall apart. Falling apart is tantamountto
territorial loss in most of the cases. The example of China's transformation into a
form of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (中国特色社会主义, lit. "China-
especially-colored Socialism") is a unique case that had earlier been systematically
developed and debated among the supreme hierarchy of the Chinese Communist
Party (中國共產) as regards its cultural, intellectual, ideological and socio-economic
dimensions and then implemented and crosschecked at all levels. But there have
never been another Muslim Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997; 邓小平), except Kemal
Ataturk himself.
Post-1938 Turkish Islamists, either they showed their real face or were masqueraded
as Kemalists, were – all – unaware of the realities of modern world; most of them
were totally unable to envision how their doctrine could possibly be implemented.
The only honorable exception was the first 'Islamist' (the term is only conventionally
used here) prime minister of Turkey Prof. Necmettin Erbakan (1926-2011), who was
already a veteran statesman, when he became prime minister (June 1996 – June 1997)
in coalition with Tansu Çiller as deputy prime minister. However, he had published
his Manifesto for his Millî Görüş (National Vision) as early as 1969, i.e. five years
before the first of the three times he was appointed as deputy prime minister in
coalition governments. Necmettin Erbakan's cultural, theoretical and socio-economic
conceptualization had nothing to do with Political Islam; it merely consisted in an
effort to revitalize the state of Kemal Ataturk by restating Anatolian Turkish Culture,
promoting traditional values and moral integrity, reasserting Turkish national
identity, reinvigorating the economy (with the then much needed privatizations),
and modernizing the technical infrastructure of Turkey's vast rural areas. Had
Erbakan remained in the power for long, he would truly have become Turkey's Deng
Xiaoping.
The scope of the present article is neither to enumerate the various rebellions started
by incorrigible and retarded sheikhs, who could not comprehend Kemal Ataturk's
innovative initiatives and the reasons for them, nor to describe the failure of various
ignorant imams, fallen mystics, and worthless theorists to realize that whatthey
(during the 20th c.) used to think of Islam was not anymore the true, historical Islam
(as spirituality, religion, wisdom, knowledge, literature, epics, science, art, culture,
philosophy, architecture, tradition and civilization),but a decomposed and putrefied
remnant that had no value at all anymore. In reality and despite all appearances,
there is no continuity between the Historical Islam and today's Muslims; there is a
rupture, a gap.

In brief, what Ataturk's opponents called and still now call 'Islam' is in reality 'their
Islam'; and disastrously enough for them, their Islam had nothing to do with the
historical Islam as evidently (and on the basis of innumerable historical sources)
practiced, revered and expanded throughout the centuries in many, variable forms
and dimensions. This concerns notably Said Nursî, who is viewed as the source of
inspiration of all posterior Islamist movements in Turkey, although he can by no
means be described as an 'Islamist'.
In reality, Said Nursî's arbitrary acceptance of Western science and rationalism, and
his demented effort to amalgamate two systems that are diametrically opposed to,
and cannot intermingle with, one another were due to his
a) lack of knowledge (he did not study either the historical Islamic sciences of the
Golden Era of Islamic Civilization or the Modern Western sciences),
b) erroneous assumption that the Modern Western sciences derived from the sciences
of the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization (which is at the antipodes of the historical
reality because, despite the enormous transfer of knowledge that took place between
the civilized Orient and the barbaric Western Europe across the centuries, all the
constituent elements, moral principles, basic concepts, and known data of Oriental
sciences were first either rejected or misperceived, then erroneously contecxtualized,
deliberately distorted, and finally used malignantly for the fabrication of a
counterfeit, inhuman system of sciences),
c) confusion between the historical Islamic rationalism and the modern Western
rationalism, and
d) limited understanding of the sources, dimensions, nature and targets of the
Western materialism and atheism.
Said Nursî was not opposed to the entire spectrum of Kemal Ataturk's reforms.
Before the rise of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) to power, Said Nursî
was a lukewarm supporter of Pan-Ottomanism, if one correctly comprehends the
term as a vague, non-systematized array of ideas and proposals as to just how to
reinstate and reinvigorate the Ottoman Empire. Of course, he defended the Caliphate
against the CUP, by participating in the Ottoman coup against CUP (1909), and later
he opposed every notion of Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanianism. But he had already
comprehended very well the failure, the ineptness, and the ultimate corruption of the
Constantinopolitan theologians and of the worthless bureaucrats of the Office of the
Sheikhulislam. Actually, Said Nursî, despite all the lies said about him by the various
pseudo-religious groups and bogus-spiritual orders instituted in Turkey over the
past few decades, was happy with the fact that Kemal Ataturk destroyed the formal
Ottoman religious establishment (an institution that had lasted 600 years: 1424-1924).
Said Nursî (1877-1960), although he had almost the same age as Kemal Ataturk, was
a man of very different background and orientation than the founder of Turkey. Said
Nursî could not understand the mentality of a military officer, who became a unique
reformer and statesman, after liberating parts of his endangered country. Contrarily
to Said Nursî's inclination to theoretically-intellectually accept the Modern Western
sciences, Kemal Ataturk did not either 'accept' or 'reject' these academic disciplines:
he simply wanted the average Turk to be well-versed in them in order to became
able to catch up with the scientifically and technologically advanced countries and
adequately modernize the newly founded state. It would be up to the prospective
generations of Turkish scientists to fully accept, criticize,disapprove of, modify or
even attack the foundations of the Western sciences, by establishing totally new

approaches (other than mere material observation and experiment) to the study, the
exploration, and the evaluation of the material and the spiritual worlds.
There was one thing that Kemal Ataturk would never accept: that an uneducated
and ignorant person, after obtaining an undeserved position of authority, rejects
beforehand something that he does not know; this is tantamount to utter paranoia.
And this is exactly what all the pathetically indoctrinated and idiotic Islamists of
today's Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan,Saudi Arabia andso many other
countries (Muslim Diaspora in Western Europe, North America,and Australia
included) do ceaselessly, thus bringing forth calamitous developments and
disproportionate disasters for the entire Muslim World.
Kemal Ataturk and Said Nursî could have easily cooperated and set common targets
within the national effort of reasserting the Anatolian Turkish culture, but this was
prevented by the common enemies of both men. At this point, it is necessary to add
that the 'Ustadh' or the 'Bediüzzaman' ('master' or 'marvel of the time': honorific
appellations for the greater Turkish theologian of the 20th c.) did not champion any
idea related to the Pan-Islamism or to the so-called Islamic Modernism (two distinct
ideological forgeries that were geared by the criminal colonial academia of France
and England in order to deceive many gullible and ignorant sheikhs, ideologists and
activists, like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh,Muhammad Rashid
Rida, Sayyid Qutb and others).
Said Nursî's farness from, and rejection of, the aforementioned figures and their
ideas and thoughts was due to his strong acquaintance with,and knowledge of, the
Ottoman administration,to his affiliation to Pan-Ottomanism, and to his ability to
distinguish between
a) imperial-level understanding of the intentions, the targets, the methods and the
practices of the colonial powers, and
b) village-level absolute inability to assess colonial countries' methods, such as
political intrigues, psychological manipulations, divisive schemes, machinations
geared to trigger self-damaging behavior and reactions to the enemy, and many
other types of evil plots (theoretical, academic, scientific,intellectual,educational,
behavioral, cultural, ideological, political, economic and other).
In other words, the Constantinopolitan Ottoman theological elite around the Sultan
and the Sheikhulislam had certainly failed to oppose the sophisticated plans and
plots of the evil colonial empires, but they were still experienced magistrates, who
definitely had enough knowledge, wisdom, perspicacity and foresight to identify
strengths pulled by foreign powers and to thus avoid falling in ideological and
theoretical traps – in striking difference with the aforementioned ignorantsheikhs
and ideologists. Having frequented these Ottoman elites, Said Nursî was able to
discern accurately at the level of governance, although he missed other capacities
and qualifications.
Many Turkish preachers, ideologists, theologians and activists associated themselves
with Said Nursî quite often, claiming theoretical vicinity and ideological affiliation;
gradually, an entire movement (Nurculuk or Nurcular) was formed and expanded
by referring to him, but quite often the references to and mentions of him involved
slight or grave distortion of his positions. Then, an avalanche of further falsifications
followed and from Said Nursî's unrealistic ideas back in the middle of the 20th c., we

finally, at the end of the century, reached to the very bottom of the shameful
alteration, utilization and politicization of the Islamic spirituality,religion, culture
and civilization as carried out by many pathetic pseudo-sheikhs and ignorant imams,
who soon became the tool of Western countries' secret services, like the most famous
and most pathetic among them, the notorious, villainous and ominous Fethullah
Gülen. His secretive and seditious movement (Gülen hareketi) ended up as the well-
known and worldwide active, terrorist organization (Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü) that
has financed many other dozens of thousands of corrupt and idiotic preachers, when
they were not already bribed by the secret services of several Western states.
The politicization of Islam, as carried out over the past 40 years in Turkey, was a
crucial stage of worldwide degradation of the spiritual, mental, intellectual,
academic, educational, cultural and religious conditions of all the Muslims of the
world. The extent of the degradation was worldwide, because Turkey has always
been the de facto leading country and the driving force of the Islamic world. In fact,
the groundbreaking measures introduced by Kemal Ataturk in Turkey back in the
1920s should have been progressively accepted and implemented in all the Muslim
states, so that they all manage to reach the level Turkey did, and reject the darkness
and the obscurantism in which they had been fallen over the past 400 years. But the
colonial powers prevented this development in order to maintain control over, and
keep exploiting, all the other Muslim countries and the fake leaderships that the
Westerners appointed there as local slaves and stooges in the first place. The method
that the colonial powers employed to achieve their calamitous targets in their
colonies across the Islamic world was precisely the formation of Political Islam (or
Islamism), the promotion of the Wahhabi cholera, and the diffusion of the racist
bogus ideology of Arab Nationalism.
In this regard, the politicization of Islam in Turkey was a form of late, indirect and
covered colonization and barbarization of Turkey that I denounced very early
(January 2009):
https://www.academia.edu/25674462/The_Colonization_of_Turkey_2009_By_Prof
_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
and
https://www.academia.edu/25675709/How_Turkey_is_Gradually_Being_Colonize
d_2009_By_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis
This phenomenon was not the revivification of the Islamic religion as its demented
supporters claimed, being empowered by the evil colonial academics, who composed
false and ludicrous terms (like 'Islamic Revivalism') in order to obscure the reality
and confuse all the people worldwide. In fact, this disastrous phenomenon was the
return of Islam's counterfeit revenant, i.e. the corporeal and mental reconstitution of
undead, demoniacally possessed, Muslim zombies that spread terror, darkness and
permanent dementia. There is nothing Islamic in any form or branch of the Political
Islam (let alone in Wahhabism); when today's Muslim zombies read the Quran, they
understand all major terms in another, erroneous connotation that is diametrically
opposed to the perception of the text by true Muslims of the Golden Era of Islamic
Civilization. Because this happens to modern times' Muslim zombies, they are cannot
reproduce the Islamic Civilization, precisely because they are not Muslims.
Only Necmettin Erbakan made a honorable exception in this nefarious development.
And this is so, because his effort was evidently creative: he composed a totally new,

authentic, synthesis (titled 'Millî Görüş') made out of traditional Anatolian culture,
Muslim moral, Turkish national education, and modern technology & engineering
(Erbakan was a mechanical engineer, with a PhD in Engineering from the RWTH
Aachen University, and later a university professor in Turkey). Millî Görüş had
nothing in common with any branch of Political Islam and, as theoretical system, it
was not related to the politicization of Islam or any theological interpretation. It was
totally unrelated to religion.
As a matter of fact, Millî Görüş was not a political ideology that utilized religious
prescriptions to fanaticize people; it was rather a theoretical socio-cultural and moral
system that stressed the need of the Anatolian Turkish society to retain cultural
traditions and moral values while economically, technologically and academically
coping with Western countries. It consisted in a very conscious and well-thought
effort to overwhelmingly reject the post-WWII theoretical, ideological, educational,
moral and behavavioral corruption of the Western world, as well as the irreversible
putrefaction that characterizes already the Western world. To put it in simple words,
Erbakan tried to retain whatever he deemed as constructive and rewarding element
of the Western science and technology, while keeping the Anatolian Turkish society
intact from the Western moral and socio-behavioral contamination. Toward the
Western world in its entirety, Erbakan was so eclectic in the 1970s as Ataturk was in
the 1920s.
If thoroughly implemented, Millî Görüş would guarantee economic independence
(instead of pathetic Erdogan's sellout of Turkey's organizations, companies and
cogglomerates to forces of economic globalization), optimized industrialization
(instead of worthless Erdogan's inconsistent economics and unsustainable public
debt), and advanced competitiveness in the world markets. Necmettin Erbakan was
a most serious threat to the Western plan that provided for Turkey's colonization via
the scheme of Political Islam. The colonial countries' local stooges, be they generals
and colonels or preachers and imams, described Erbakan as 'Islamist', whereas he
was the last stand of Kemal Ataturk's paradigm against the either hypocritical or
idiotic Kemalists. It is quite indicative: Prof. Necmettin Erbakan never met the
miserable, disreputable and vicious enemy of Turkey, Fethullah Gülen.
The politicization of Islam was in fact imposed across Turkey's politics via systematic
intereference of many foreign institutions in Turkey's military, economic, socio-
political life during the 1990s and the 2000s. The local Islamist stooges and puppets
of American, English and French politicians, diplomats, military and intelligence
officers, academics, and businessmen were not actually the first Turkish servants and
lackeys of the Western powers. Historically, these corrupt and treacherous elements
constituted the next stage of Western interference in the affairs of the 19th c. ailing
Ottoman Empire; when the caliphate was already defunct, they deliberately
masqueraded into Kemalists during the period 1918-1924 and survived as part of the
new establishment, having at times high positions next to Kemal Ataturk. Their only
target was to progressively sabotage Ataturk's efforts to create an incorruptible and
formidable state that would belong to all the people and not to the treacherous,
secluded, indoctrinated, pseudo-Islamic elites of silly theologians.
The first traitors of Kemal Ataturk were therefore some hypocritical elements that
appeared as supporters and admirers of the founder of Turkey; some of them were
even high magistrates belonging to Ataturk's immediate entourage. These early

Kemalists were used by Western diplomats in their effort to destroy the state of
Kemal Ataturk, which was - in total contrast with the Western elitist, pseudo-
democratic tyrannies - a state that fully reflected a free society of equal nationals with
strong cultural-historical identity and moral integrity, and not (as it already
happened in the corrupt and useless Western countries) a disunited community
made of distinct, mutually in conflict, social classes exploited by criminal, secretively
segregated Orders and hierarchical societies. In fact, all the methods thatthe Turkish
Islamists used recently in order to further distort the nature of the state of Kemal
Ataturk had already been employed for decades by the Kemalists; the reason is very
simple: the guidance was always the same – alien and evil!
Thus, after 2002,many Turkish Islamists progressively started believing that, by
means of dissimulation, step-by-step deception, and silly lies said one after the other,
they could cheat the Turksh people and promote their pseudo-Islamic doctrine,
while also corrupting the masses with a fake socioeconomic improvement and
spectacular but unnecessary public works. Despite their encroachment in the
government for 18 years (thanks to the failure of the anti-Ataturk Kemalist parties,
the existence of paranoid electoral laws, the orchestration of repeated electoral fraud,
and the systematic neutralization of vast, non-Islamist masses by means of massive
flattery and bribery that took the form of financially disastrous salary increases and
numerous other material benefits), the Islamists failed to implement a proper, let
alone advanced, Islamization agenda.
If one carefully observes the legislation and the policies implemented over this very
long period, one concludes that Turkish Islamists will need 300 years to implement
their agenda. Populist rhetoric, half-uttered references to past stories, emotional
expression of memories, symbolic gestures, posthumous glorification of failed
Islamist ideologists and poets, like Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, lessening of strict secular
rules, and commemoration of culturally meaningless, theoretically-educationally
misinterpreted, and politically insignificant events, like Alp Arslan's victory at
Malazgirt (Manzikert) in 1071, are not methods to bring the Ottoman Caliphate back.
Turning the Ayasofya Museum to a mosque does not bring the Ottoman Empire
back; it pushes it farther and farther to the past.
First, they faced steadfast and fierce opposition from the military and the Kemalist
opposition (despite the incessant interference of many Western powers in favor of
the Islamists); second, they never managed to truly deepen and widen their main
electoral basis (the real nucleus of Turkey's Islamists never went above 20-23%; the
rest are not Islamists but mere, provisory voters, who get financial benefits from the
long-term disastrous governmental policy); third, they were divided among them
(covertly before 2012; overtly between 2012 and 2016; and frontally ever since); and
fourth, their necessary alliance with the Pan-Turanianists (after July 2016 and more
ostensibly after early 2017) significantly modified their targets and possibilities,
forcing them to be more realistic and less agenda-driven.
In fact, 18 years of Islamist governments in Turkey fully prove that Ataturk's
assaulted state and beleaguered heritage demonstrate enormous resistance to all
types of destructive efforts. Either Kemalist or Islamist, any dissimulative policy can
quantitatively modify and modulate but never qualitatively transfigure and alter the
state founded by Kenal Ataturk as per the Qizilbash spirituality and the Bektashi
transcendental illumination provided by Rudolf von Sebottendorf. Only a very

Kemal Ataturk 1938-2020: the World's Greatest 20th-century Statesman betrayed by Islamists, Pan-Turanianists & Kemalists

Kemal Ataturk 1938-2020: the World's Greatest 20th-century Statesman betrayed by Islamists, Pan-Turanianists & Kemalists

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

Similaire à Kemal Ataturk 1938-2020: the World's Greatest 20th-century Statesman betrayed by Islamists, Pan-Turanianists & Kemalists

Similaire à Kemal Ataturk 1938-2020: the World's Greatest 20th-century Statesman betrayed by Islamists, Pan-Turanianists & Kemalists (20)

Plus de Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Plus de Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis (20)

Dernier

Dernier (13)

Kemal Ataturk 1938-2020: the World's Greatest 20th-century Statesman betrayed by Islamists, Pan-Turanianists & Kemalists