[infowarrior1]

(11-25-2014 09:16 AM)turuk Wrote:  

Kinda getting off-topic due to prejudice. I hope the mods intervene.

It may be truth. But yes I agree with you we are getting offtopic here.

[Maciano]

Maybe some Turkish RVF'ers can answer a question have.

It seems to me, Erdogan is explicitly aiming himself at the youth, women in this case. Erdogan wants Turks to embrace their heritage; (Turkish) nationalism, Islam & pride in the Ottoman past. Last week he said something nutty like how muslims discovered America before Columbus did.

Turkey also actively tries to interfere with Turkish diaspora in Europe through all sorts of crypto-statist foundations like Diyanet, which helps build Turkish-spoken mosques & exploiting international law loopholes like the double passport system (as a man you can only buy-off your military service for 5000 euro).

Is it true Erdogan does these things to turn the youth, and especially the youth, away from Western/liberalizing forces?

[turuk]

@Maciano, where are you from?

[turkishcandy]

(11-25-2014 10:52 AM)Maciano Wrote:  

Maybe some Turkish RVF'ers can answer a question have.

It seems to me, Erdogan is explicitly aiming himself at the youth, women in this case. Erdogan wants Turks to embrace their heritage; (Turkish) nationalism, Islam & pride in the Ottoman past. Last week he said something nutty like how muslims discovered America before Columbus did.

Turkey also actively tries to interfere with Turkish diaspora in Europe through all sorts of crypto-statist foundations like Diyanet, which helps build Turkish-spoken mosques & exploiting international law loopholes like the double passport system (as a man you can only buy-off your military service for 5000 euro).

Is it true Erdogan does these things to turn the youth, and especially the youth, away from Western/liberalizing forces?

I would say his method is less nationalist and more pan-islamist. He is not concerned with Turkish identity. He is trying to turn Turkey into an undisputable leader of the Middle East and all the (sunni) Muslim population, gather them under one banner, not literally but economically, culturally and politically. He calls it ''The New Turkey'' and calls himself ''The Leader of the New Turkey''. He aims the youth to secure his voters, create a loyal class of supporters and then ultimately form a society with no opposition to his reign. He has a lot of plans for 2023 too, the 100th anniversary of Turkish Republic. He is building a 3rd bridge and a big-ass 3rd airport in Istanbul. He even has a crazy plan to dig half of Istanbul and turn it into an island like Manhattan. He is on a thin line between visionary and nuts.


To answer your question, no, I don't think it has much to do with turning the youth away from the Western values as the majority of Turkish youth has nothing to do with Western values anyway, only a small middle class does. He just wants to make them more loyal supporters and voters, and the way to make that happen is to inject his cultural ideology in the youth. If you mean the economy by ''liberal'', he is the biggest supporter of liberal economy and privatization. His goal is to gain more political power, improve Turkey's economy and make it the capital of Middle East's economy. He doesn't care about Jihad or the West. He thinks stragetically.

[Maciano]

(11-25-2014 11:55 AM)turuk Wrote:  

@Maciano, where are you from?

Netherlands, we have quite a big Turkish community here. Around 400+k, but atypical -- high % are Kurds.

[solo]

(11-25-2014 07:22 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 04:32 AM)solo Wrote:  

To my knowledge, Erdogan or previous governments also hasn't acknowledged the genocide of Armenians. In my country, we have a politician of Turkish descent who've made some comments that tried to falsify our history and that of a neighbor country, as well as trying to excuse islamist terrorists and by extension their genocides.

I get the impression that there is an undercurrent of disguised imperialist islamism in Turkish politics.

Why should anyone be forced to acknowledge something they don't believe in, even if it's a genocide. France,Greece and a few other European countries criminalized the denial of Armenian genocide, which makes it a thought crime. Because fuck free speech. I'm all ears if anyone can rationally explain why forced acknowledge of a genocide/ethnic cleansing/war crime/massacre is more important than free speech. And for the sake of argument let's assume Armenian genocide is a fact. Why is saying ''I don't believe Armenian genocide happened'' equated with hate speech and made an exception of free speech?

I don't think I've said that anyone should be forced to acknowledge something they don't believe in.

I've said that *I think* that Erdogan hasn't acknowledged it. That's all. Actually, I'm against criminalizing beliefs.

[Maciano]

(11-25-2014 12:10 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 10:52 AM)Maciano Wrote:  

Maybe some Turkish RVF'ers can answer a question have.

It seems to me, Erdogan is explicitly aiming himself at the youth, women in this case. Erdogan wants Turks to embrace their heritage; (Turkish) nationalism, Islam & pride in the Ottoman past. Last week he said something nutty like how muslims discovered America before Columbus did.

Turkey also actively tries to interfere with Turkish diaspora in Europe through all sorts of crypto-statist foundations like Diyanet, which helps build Turkish-spoken mosques & exploiting international law loopholes like the double passport system (as a man you can only buy-off your military service for 5000 euro).

Is it true Erdogan does these things to turn the youth, and especially the youth, away from Western/liberalizing forces?

I would say his method is less nationalist and more pan-islamist. He is not concerned with Turkish identity. He is trying to turn Turkey into an undisputable leader of the Middle East and all the (sunni) Muslim population, gather them under one banner, not literally but economically, culturally and politically. He calls it ''The New Turkey'' and calls himself ''The Leader of the New Turkey''. He aims the youth to secure his voters, create a loyal class of supporters and then ultimately form a society with no opposition to his reign. He has a lot of plans for 2023 too, the 100th anniversary of Turkish Republic. He is building a 3rd bridge and a big-ass 3rd airport in Istanbul. He even has a crazy plan to dig half of Istanbul and turn it into an island like Manhattan. He is on a thin line between visionary and nuts.


To answer your question, no, I don't think it has much to do with turning the youth away from the Western values as the majority of Turkish youth has nothing to do with Western values anyway, only a small middle class does. He just wants to make them more loyal supporters and voters, and the way to make that happen is to inject his cultural ideology in the youth. If you mean the economy by ''liberal'', he is the biggest supporter of liberal economy and privatization. His goal is to gain more political power, improve Turkey's economy and make it the capital of Middle East's economy. He doesn't care about Jihad or the West. He thinks stragetically.

Truth be told, my only contact with Turks has been with diaspora here & in Turkey's sunny beach cities (Bodrum et al) & Istanbul. With "liberal" I don't mean economically liberal, I mean culturally liberal: tolerance, cosmopolitan, live & let live attitudes -- not to be confused with nutty progressive stuff.

Thnx for the reply. It's sometimes hard to understand the context of Turks, I always thought of Turkey as unique. Turks form a sizable minority in Western Europe, but they're quite oriented to their communities. Turkey seems different from both Europe & the Middle East, like Russia is both different from Europe & Asia.

[lskdfjldsf]

He is really starting to catch some heat. I believe Mr. Erdogan deserves an RVF prize for "Most Red Pill Leader of 2014" because he's dropping some hard truths to people who clearly aren't ready for it. This isn't even an interview or a press conference, he's speaking at a women's group summit.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/25/world/...?hpt=hp_c2

Quote:

Women's rights groups responded angrily Tuesday to comments by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that women and men are not equal "because their nature is different." Eight groups signed a statement condemning his remarks as violating the national constitution and international agreements, saying he aimed to "denigrate decades of effort by women's movements for gender equality."

Activists planned to hold a march later Tuesday to mark the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Erdogan kicked off the firestorm Monday at a summit hosted by an Istanbul-based women's group, when he said women's "equality before justice" was what was key, rather than actual equality.

"Equality is turning the victim into an oppressor by force or vice versa. What women need is to be able to be equivalent, rather than equal, so it is justice. That is what we need," he said. "You cannot bring women and men into equal positions; that is against nature because their nature is different."

Erdogan also told the event, organized by the Women and Democracy Association, that a woman cannot do every job that a man can do because "it is against her delicate nature." Hailing the achievement of motherhood, he cited the needs of pregnant women or nursing mothers as examples of why women could not be equal to men in the workplace.

According to Turkey's semiofficial Anadolu news agency, Erdogan also insisted his government has always been behind women in their struggle for equal rights and said it would continue to support them. However, in their joint statement, the women's groups said Erdogan was spouting rhetoric he first voiced in 2010 and that he had shown no intention of changing track.

They also argued that the rejection of universal equality is an important factor in increased violence against women. "We ... believe that equality is not a bargaining chip but a democratic and universal right and that we will not give up on striving for equality," the statement said. "We reject the rhetoric which we believe is an effort to take back rights which were attained by women nearly 100 years ago."

Turkey fared badly in the latest World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report, coming 120th out of 142 countries in 2013. This made Turkey the lowest-ranking country in the whole of the Europe and Central region, although it had made progress in its overall score and rank since the previous year, the report's authors said.

[turkishcandy]

Not the most alpha, but definitely a good candidate for the most red pill. Putin would have dropped better gems if feminism had been a growing movement in Russia as it is in Turkey, but these words are coming from a man whose power and popularity are tied to his relations with the West. That's a big Fuck-You to the West. And saying them on UN's feminism day Priceless...

You might be surprised but feminism is rapidly growing among liberals in Turkey. In overall Turkey is going right but there is another pole that is going far left, causing dangerous polarization. Last year feminists started a campaign for men to sit in subway with their legs closed, claiming men are taking too much space in subway seats and making women uncomfortable. Petitions have been signed. I vaguely remember a thread about it but I might be wrong.

They used this obviously cherry-picked photo [Close your legs, Don't invade my Space]

[The Father]

(11-24-2014 10:51 AM)turuk Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 10:41 AM)kerouac Wrote:  

Not sure why he's against C-Sections, but otherwise I like what he said.

I'm just not a big fan of his Islamization, but I get that he is trying to get Turkey to have a greater role in the middle east, now that their chances of joining the EU have diminished. Hell, bring back the Ottoman/Turkish empire. This movement towards nationalism is doing the world no good. Empires, at least, bring a level of stability to regions that these nation-states don't.

Yes, really. Is the world better off today than when prosperous nations colonized (read: civilized) parts of the world that were, frankly, uncivilized. When the French and English ruled the middle east, did we have the nonsense we have there now? Was Rhodesia (sorry, "Zimbabwe" ) worse off when civilized people "oppressed" it. No, it was the bread basket of Africa, with its wonderfully productive farms. Now it is ...typical Africa. So yeah, a little colonialization would improve the savage parts of the world. Until those people start to buck up, they are - no matter how politically incorrect it is to say - our lessers. And they should be controlled, ruled, colonized - in the same way we don't let little kids run around and shit all over the house. We RULE them until they prove they can make their own choices. And the Syrias, Rhodesia's, and other parts of the world are in fact the worlds temperamental children.

[POASTER]

^
(Heartiste / Roissy Commenter)

[RexImperator]

I dunno. I heard he shags goats, and his tiny penis smells like kebab: