Assumptions that hide the truth: An expert disease

The agenda is busy. Important events are taking place on a global, regional, and national scale. The "experts" who come out to interpret these events brush them off with platitudes. This brushing off may be due to the lack of time resulting from being a guest on TV screens every day and tweeting constantly. In such cases, "platitudes" save them: they declare the obvious with opening and connecting phrases like "in a globalizing world," "the big picture," or "historically," and then move on. 

Some experts are perceived as if they are saying something truly important. Behind this perception lies the failure to properly apply critical thinking. If our "confident" expert, who thinks with a rote logic and templates, presents their speech—decorated with plenty of quotes—effectively, they appear impressive. 

Experts, perhaps because of their expertise, have an established assumption: the perpetrator of an event is whoever benefited from it. Mahir Kaynak used to repeat this assumption constantly. Those coming from similar professions have continued this tradition. 

Do you think this is true? Have you looked at this assumption carefully? Let's ask it this way: What does this assumption assume? I am counting. No getting bored immediately: 

Assumption: The perpetrator of an event is whoever benefited from it. 

Assumptions of the Assumption: 

1) An event has a perpetrator.

2) The perpetrator of an event correctly foresaw and calculated the outcomes of that event. 

3) Events do not happen randomly or unplanned. 

Do you think these assumptions are correct? Do you think political actors correctly foresee and calculate the outcomes of the events they carry out? Does an event really happen in the way the perpetrator planned or directly intended? Can't the event change entirely due to the influence of those who intervene in it? 

I do not want to give long examples and distract you from the topic. But I want to deepen my questions with a few short examples. On a global scale, developed capitalist countries wanted to maximize their profits by shifting their production to countries with cheap labor; however, these manufacturing countries learned how to manufacture and became rivals to their former bosses. On a regional scale, Stalin actually set his sights on Turkey's lands to increase the USSR's sphere of influence; yet this behavior benefited those who wanted to force Turkey into an alliance with the USA. On a national scale, those who wanted to raise a religious generation ended up making the youth cold toward religion. The examples can be multiplied. Perhaps even more suitable examples than the ones I presented might come to mind. However, I think I have made my point. This method, which most experts cling to in order to identify the perpetrator behind events, is essentially misleading. 

To find the perpetrator, one must go beyond investigating intent and who benefited from the event. However, if we are left to these permanent guest experts and thinkers who use concepts without questioning, examining, or refining them, we cannot go any further. If we remain trapped in the first interpretation that comes to mind, the pointing finger, or witness testimony, we surrender our minds to darkness. To go beyond what is presented, we must realize our assumptions. 

Let us dissect assumptions by asking questions not with the fear of losing or hatred for the enemy, but with the desire to find the truth. Perhaps then, broad horizons will open before us. 

Furthermore, we must go beyond investigating political events with the demeanor of a prosecutor. Politics is a field of practice. There are things that are intended to be done, and that is why analysis is important. If we agree on this, shouldn't we focus on how we will benefit from the event instead of chasing the perpetrator of the event and the perpetrator's intent?