Tweet
I had a fascinating discussion with the son of a prominent Turkish secularist leader at odds with AKP. This guy is a very smart guy who is going to be a leading heart failure physician but also a very easy going guy to discuss stuff with. He is an acolyte of Ataturk and after work we went to dinner to discuss the history of Turkish Nationalism and then the rise of Erdogan.
Generally, I picked up on a paranoia of sorts that both sides of the Turkish equation have for eachother.
When I discussed the historical facets and stats behind the rural masses support for Erdogan and general support for some brand of religious ideology in their law system, and provided him the references he had not much to say except that he therefore disagreed with the majority, feeling that the rural majority ought to be kept at bay despite their aspirations.
We remain good friends, and I investigated one of his allegations. One of these was that Fateh Gulen was funded with billions by the CIA and the Americans.
When i provided him with Claire Berlinski's article, I sort of entrapped him first asking him about the Anatolian elite and whether Anatolia was truly a wealthy city of elites. I told him I was interested in land there. He issued glowing and gushing sentiments about the Anatolian elites and remarked about their millions of dollars of influence. I then whipped out the article:
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_...lah-gulen.html
And noted how Berlinski pretty much destroys his claim and notes that Gulen and his predecessors were very much funded by Anatolia's richest who derived from the rural masses originally.
He had not much to say after that except to concede it was plausible and that this concept was flawed.
With that in mind, I went on to deliver the final blow as I had argued that Fethullah Gulen was not the instigator but the response to interventionalism by the Brits. I substantiated this with the following:
"If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria, . . . like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. "
-- Gulen
Illustrating that even if the secularists feel that Gulen is changing the nature of Turkish governance, it is merely a response to the interventionalism hoisted by the Brits and completed by Ataturk.
Generally, I picked up on a paranoia of sorts that both sides of the Turkish equation have for eachother.
When I discussed the historical facets and stats behind the rural masses support for Erdogan and general support for some brand of religious ideology in their law system, and provided him the references he had not much to say except that he therefore disagreed with the majority, feeling that the rural majority ought to be kept at bay despite their aspirations.
We remain good friends, and I investigated one of his allegations. One of these was that Fateh Gulen was funded with billions by the CIA and the Americans.
When i provided him with Claire Berlinski's article, I sort of entrapped him first asking him about the Anatolian elite and whether Anatolia was truly a wealthy city of elites. I told him I was interested in land there. He issued glowing and gushing sentiments about the Anatolian elites and remarked about their millions of dollars of influence. I then whipped out the article:
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_...lah-gulen.html
And noted how Berlinski pretty much destroys his claim and notes that Gulen and his predecessors were very much funded by Anatolia's richest who derived from the rural masses originally.
He had not much to say after that except to concede it was plausible and that this concept was flawed.
With that in mind, I went on to deliver the final blow as I had argued that Fethullah Gulen was not the instigator but the response to interventionalism by the Brits. I substantiated this with the following:
"If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria, . . . like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. "
-- Gulen
Illustrating that even if the secularists feel that Gulen is changing the nature of Turkish governance, it is merely a response to the interventionalism hoisted by the Brits and completed by Ataturk.
Comment