Did Ataturk say that "all turks were christians"??

  • Bu konu 1 izleyen ve 0 yanıt içeriyor.
1 yazı görüntüleniyor (toplam 1)
  • Yazar
  • #23892
    Anahtar yönetici

    Was Ataturk Jewish?

    If you can't or won't read my segue for the above 'revelation,' scroll to the middle of this post highlighted in red to be directed to Steve Sailer's blog, for the answer.

    I've hinted in past posts, Turkey and Turks have to tackle the 'taboo' factor prior to global adjudication. Among the many illustrations, including the Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish questions, honor killings, Turkish interpretation of Islam, the role of nationalism, and others, none more is regarded in pure idolatry as the 'father' of modern Turkey, the first President of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

    He is credited and revered by Turks and non-Turks alike, personally responsible for many accomplishments, too numerous to mention, that Turks even today are thankful for. Almost 70 years after his death, his popularity, justifiably and deservedly so, is of the utmost importance and highest placement among public figures encompassing the entire population of Turks both in Turkey and abroad.

    However, whenever powers of natural evolution involving cultural, political, social irregularities push the envelope, the 'public' servants, as well as the 'peacekeepers,' namely the Turkish military, although with more limited powers in recent years, scream for cover under the umbrella of Ataturk the 'philosophy,' not Ataturk the man.

    Moreover, the public display of affection sometimes contradicts the private concerns of how much longer we will need to ask/beg for his 'divine' intervention, whenever we find ourselves powerless, or facing some sort of a radical ideology we fear is going to take over the country, as part of an organized conspiracy instituted by a higher power than our willpower.

    From my previous post titled “Taking the 'Boo' out of Taboo:”

    “Why do we have to defer all of our current and foreseen obligations to the man (or the symbolism of such idolatry,) whom we call the father of our country?”

    First and foremost, does such an ever-so-often request for 'walking in his path' produce the results we aim for, or is it just another unwarranted excuse for the inability to manufacture an acceptable outcome for the current time being.

    Forget the internal danger of anti-Ataturk sentiment we believe is lurking toward us if we stop using the shielding of the Ataturk mask. Shouldn't we at least pay attention to, if not for righteous reasons but maybe for the simple awareness factor of being able to face the facts or refute the dishonorable, some of the independent and non-independent external sources are saying about this holier than thou man.

    A few years ago, Antonio Banderas, the actor selected to play Ataturk in a big budget, major production movie still in the conceptual mode after so many years, rejected the offer after the Greeks and others campaigned, I guess effectively judging from the outcome, right or wrong, in highlighting some of the dictatorial tendencies, as well as the sadistic atrocities they blamed Ataturk for.

    Pro-Turkish-view Tall Armenian Tale posted the following regarding the above:

    ” . . . Notices of Mr. Banderas's intention to play Ataturk began appearing In Greek-American publications . . . One of them published a letter signed by “a member of the Greek community of N.Y.” describing Ataturk as a “savage maniac” who was also “a child molester of both sexes, a mass murderer, a destroyer of Greek civilization and in general a disgrace to human civilization as we know it . . . “

    And now comes my recent discoveries for your perusal. First, this from a self-proclaimed journalist and founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute, Steve Sailer, on iSteve.com's archive site (dated June 26, 2006,) who reports that Ataturk was a convert according to the sources he links to:

    ” . . . Three and a half centuries after the forced conversion from Judaism to Islam of the false messiah Sabbatai Zevi, his followers and their secular descendents remain, apparently, strongly represented among the anti-Muslim fundamentalist political, business, and cultural elites in Istanbul and Ankara . . . “

    ” . . . Turkish Jews who took Muslim names and outwardly behaved like Muslims but secretly believed in Sabbetai Zevi, the 17th-century false messiah, and conducted carefully guarded prayers and rituals in his name . . . “

    ” . . . Kemal confided: 'I'm a descendant of Sabbetai Zevi – not indeed a Jew any more, but an ardent admirer of this prophet of yours' . . .”

    Steve Sailer also provides a link to Mavi Boncuk who reported on this back in 2004.

    For more about the Sabbatean movement and the secretive community, which plays an important role in Turkey, you may want to read another post by Steve Sailer. Steve goes on to report that Sabbateans of today “are not Jews either. The Jewish community wants nothing to do with them. 'As far as we're concerned,' says Rabbi Yitzhak Haleva, deputy chief rabbi of Istanbul, 'there are only Jews and Muslims. There's nothing in between.' “

    My Note: Obviously, there's nothing wrong with being Jewish, or a convert from one religion to another, or am I suggesting such a thing as a raw deal. However, my annoyance is with the limitations of the Turks' right and access to their founder and his background and debate its relevance.

    Followed by an 'Open Letter to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk' by Kani Xulam in Kurdistan.org. Here is an excerpt:

    ” . . . According to Lord Kinross, you actually wished all Turks were Christians. Since you were drunk most of the times, it is a little bit hard to say if you meant what you said or were engaging in some sort of jest. What was it? But your animosity towards Islam and its clergy, especially when you were tipsy, was proverbial and reminds me of how the pre-Christian era Roman Emperors treated the Disciples of Christ. One incident out of Lord Kinross’ book left me gasping for air by the time I was done with it. The Shah of Iran had come to Turkey for a state visit. You had taken him on of a tour of your old battlegrounds at the Dardanelles. On the way to Izmir, in the presidential train, you had gotten yourself drunk. In Usak, a large crowd had gathered to greet you and your guest. Among the throng, you spotted a Muslim cleric with his traditional garb and began hurling profanities at him. The poor man, according to Lord Kinross, took to his heels to escape the presidential assault. You were so incensed that you ordered the imprisonment of the governor and the bombardment of the city. When you sobered up, you apparently forwent your decision . . . “

    And here is another by quickfound.net, a news multisearch service. On its 'Turkey' page (scroll to the bottom of the page,) the following excerpts from TIME Magazine circa 1953 appear:

    ” . . . One evening in 1926, he gave a champagne party for foreign diplomats; it turned into an all-night carousal. Returning home at dawn, the diplomats saw the corpses of the entire opposition leadership, among them Kemal's old friends, hanging in the town square . . . “

    ” . . . In 1938, exhausted by periodic debauches and drinking bouts, undermined by diseases, he died . . . “

    Can we intelligently, without quick reactionary and anger-ridden tendencies, respond to these and other claims, and surely we should. But at the same time, we need to be able to debate and study the cause and effect factors of this ideology we named 'Kemalism,' without defacing the man and his persona.

    The intentional laws written by Turkey to protect Ataturk from any 'negative' criticism, without personal attacks but with the ability to debate his methods and policies, by its citizens, contradicts the open-book policy of the generally accepted principles of today's global or civilized societies where nothing is untouchable. In fact, if we expect exactly that from our current leaders, political or otherwise, why do we feel the need to 'protect' such a past reference of our recent history? To be honest, I've seen or heard more criticism of some of the actions of the Ottoman Sultan credited for the great conquest of Constantinople, ending one era while commencing another.

    If we have nothing to fear or hide, then why are we afraid to openly discuss Ataturk's merits, along with his shortcomings, which might teach us to accept and correct any inconsistencies that others may use against us in times of their convenience.

    If the general consensus is that we should not critique or debate someone whose time has passed, then should we expect him to, at every opportune moment, always deliver the goods (never happens anyway) that we desperately feel the need for. Maybe we should practice the patience necessary for the allowance of developing a follow up leader who, given the chance, may pleasantly surprise us.

    Technorati Tags: ataturk, kemalism, turkey, turk, greek, armenian, kurdish, turkish, banderas, movie, ottoman, conqueror, constantinople, istanbul, sultan, islam, kinross, christian, christ, religion, jew, jewish, judaism, convert, sabbetai, sabbatai, sabbatean, rabbi, nationalism, ideology, philosophy, steve sailer, taboo

    Posted by Metin | Permalink

1 yazı görüntüleniyor (toplam 1)
  • Bu konuyu yanıtlamak için giriş yapmış olmalısınız.