Is the MHP Kurdish-nationalist?

The title is, of course, provocative. Let me give the answer right away: of course not. So, why did I choose this title? I will explain. But first, let's clarify a few issues. 

To decide whether the MHP is Kurdish-nationalist, one must define both the MHP and Kurdish-nationalism. You probably think I'm talking nonsense. When we use the name "MHP" today, we understand it as a party represented in parliament. This party was founded on January 24, 1993. However, this party is actually the party of a larger tradition. In this sense, the founding of the MHP is February 9, 1969. Therefore, "MHP" refers to both an organizational tradition and a party currently operating in accordance with the Law on Political Parties. 

Can the term "Kurdish-nationalism" be defined so clearly? It's a bit difficult. Because this term is used more for disparagement. Generally, depending on the political views of one's opponent, the following can be implied: 1) Advocating that Kurds exist; 2) Advocating that the Kurdish language exists; 3) Advocating for the inclusion of Kurdish identity in the Constitution; 4) Advocating for Kurdish to be an official language; 5) Placing Kurdish identity above everything else; 6) Advocating for Kurds to establish a separate state or a federated state, etc. In various contexts, one or more of these have undoubtedly been disparaged under the label of Kurdish-nationalism. 

So, why are we discussing the relationship between the MHP and Kurdish-nationalism? Let me explain. The MHP is often associated in society with claims such as that Kurds do not exist, or if they do, they are essentially Turks; that the Kurdish language does not exist, or if it does, it is not an independent language; and that Kurds are potential terrorists. Of course, there are many statements by leading MHP figures who are careful not to equate Kurds with the PKK. However, most of us would not believe that the MHP or people from the MHP tradition would publish a magazine written in positive language about the Kurdish language and Kurdishness. Especially in the days before September 12, when the spiral of violence held every neighborhood of society captive... 

The magazine, known to those interested in the subject, recently became a topic of discussion again on X. I am leaving the relevant post here: https://x.com/Mirovatiyek/status/1834287161216303482?t=8n7ElpYbtYcIjum-pwDd6Q&s=08

I am talking about the magazine *Kon*, which was published by people from the MHP or the idealist (Ülkücü) tradition. In the magazine, the CHP is criticized regarding the Dersim 1938 events. Kurdishness is mentioned as an ethnic group. While accepting Kurdishness, they view Kurds as being of the same race as Turks, as Turanian. The magazine includes a story in Kurdish. 

If it had been published in the 1990s, this publication, which would have been considered outright Kurdish-nationalist and separatist propaganda, was able to be published by a completely different group before 1980. Now I ask: Is the MHP Kurdish-nationalist? Or did the idealists engage in Kurdish-nationalism with this publication? 

Remember, in the minutes of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), Kurdish was referred to as an "unknown language." Those interested can check this link: https://teyit.org/demec-kontrolu/kurtcenin-meclis-tutanaklarina-bilinmeyen-dil-olarak-gectigi-iddiasi

Words like "Kurd," "Kurdish," and "Kurdistan" have been considered ordinary or dangerous depending on history and political debates. Isn't it time to move past these? Doesn't taking a stance against these words according to the goals and usage of the separatist terrorist organization serve the organization's purpose? 

Let's be realistic and fair. It is not difficult to find evidence for terrorism and separatism. Instead of focusing on evidence that is clearly in plain sight, why do we punish expressions that everyone can use without veering into terrorism and separatism, and offer all these words to the service of the Separatist Terrorist Organization?