The unbearable lightness of Kurdish nationalism!

If it weren't for Milan Kundera, the headlines of those of us who deal with ink-stained affairs would certainly be incomplete.

The author used this concept to describe the idea that because life and human choices are "unrepeatable," they do not actually carry great weight; in other words, existence contains a kind of lightness and a sense of meaninglessness.

In the philosophical background of the novel, there are also Nietzsche's discussions on "eternal return"; if life happens only once, do our actions have an absolute weight or not?

It is not easy to answer.

But in our country, this phrase has long since moved out of its literary context and is being used as an ironic and polemical template.

For example, to emphasize the lack of seriousness of an idea, to criticize a politician's wavering, or to mock—if you will—outbursts that appear ambitious but turn out to be hollow.

Having made this introduction, let us come to the main subject.

Tuncer Bakırhan, one of the Co-Chairs of the DEM Party, recently stated in a veiled manner, "The concept of 'Turkishness' should be removed from the Constitution."

He said;

"Not all of the 85 million living in Turkey are Turkish. We are all citizens of the Republic of Turkey. Therefore, forcing everyone into a single identity is one of the fundamental problems. A definition that encompasses all differences would, of course, be good."

When read like this, it can naturally be evaluated as an innocent political statement.

However, let us state that the real issue here is not so much this or similar outbursts themselves, but rather the claim of moral and intellectual superiority woven around a mental anomaly.

In this way, with pleasant-sounding but hollow sentences, they both avoid frightening those in the opposing camp too much and gain the support of fake leftists, soft-brained liberals, and fund-recipients who serve globalist gangs.

How nice...

But if we translate these sentences politically, it will be more understandable:

"Let us destroy the Republic of Turkey and replace it with an Islamist-Kurdish federation that has become wobbly in the spiral of identity politics."

This is not just a simple legal or political thesis; this approach automatically tries to push everyone—without exception—who defends the nation-state, the unity and integrity of the homeland, the equality of 85 million people before the law without discrimination, and citizenship of the Republic of Turkey into a position that "should be shamed."

One must read the back, the front, and even the lines between these sentences well.

If you are not in favor of identity politics, they don't say "you are a racist" openly, but they imply it.

It sounds like a joke, but it is so...

There is a fundamental trick here.

Let us explain as best as we can.

Atatürk's nationalism is historically based on political citizenship, not on the idea of ethnic purity. The expression "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk" does not refer to blood ties; this sentence is a call for political belonging.

Can this not be criticized?

Of course, it can be criticized.

However, the fact that Kurdish nationalists label this directly as "racism" stems not from a desire for criticism, but from the intention to end the debate with moral superiority.

Because then, the debate ends, the interlocutor is left unable to respond, and is forced to go on the defensive.

Tuncer Bakırhan's demand that "Turkishness be removed from the Constitution" is the product of a similar comfort.

It is circulated under the guise of pluralism, but in reality, this is not pluralism; it is a marketing strategy they apply to push identity politics onto our people.

There is a hypocrisy here that must be recorded.

For example, those who want the concept of "Turkishness" removed from the Constitution usually do not say what they will put in its place; they gloss over it with some clichés.

Or rather, they say it implicitly but do not reveal the intentions behind their minds.

Their real concern is not the equalization of ethnic identities before the state, but the withdrawal of the Turkish identity from the public sphere.

Because they realize that the rest is easy. They know very well how they will tear down the fortress after entering through this breach to be opened in the walls of the Republic of Turkey.

They have studied this lesson well for years.

First in Iraq, then in Syria...

We may see it in Iran before long.

But Turkey is a critical threshold for them. Because rather than being a partner in the title deed of the country, their eyes are on the entirety of this deed.

Let us not pass without asking; for example, if "Turkishness" is problematic as a constitutional overarching identity, why is "Kurdishness" not problematic as a political identity?

Must we ignore the inclusiveness of one and sanctify the exclusionary nature of the other?

Why is Atatürk's nationalism automatically seen as "racism," while Kurdish nationalism is seen as a "quest for rights"?

Let us sit crooked and speak straight; the answer to this double standard is not ideological, but psychological; because victimhood provides immense immunity in politics.

Just like the "my veiled sister" talk that the government clings to whenever it is cornered.

Kurdish politics has also been skillfully using this area of immunity for many years. The heavy mistakes of the state in the past, the politics that grist the mill of Kurdish nationalists, etc.; they present these as untouchable excuses in every debate today.

Let us say that this is a magnificent comfort zone for the most useful apparatuses of imperialism!

Yet, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 2002.

Anyone who is not blind can see how the government has provided great advantages to Kurds economically, socially, and politically through Islamism.

Now, Kurds in this country are more "equal" than anyone else.

No matter what anyone says, today the Kurdish line is "justified," while those who object to it are declared "racist," "fascist," or "statist."

The debate is not taking place on an equal footing; because one side sits in the seat of so-called moral superiority, just as their imperialist masters want to show our people.

Yet, the ironic thing is that this politics, which accuses those who do not think like it of racism, does not refrain from using the harshest identity-based language that centers its own ethnic identity.

Is this not the real racism?

While generalizations such as "Turkish state," "Turkish mind," and "Turkish mentality" can be made easily, all hell breaks loose when the same generalization is made in the opposite direction.

Because the issue here is not principle; it is about who has the right to speak in line with their own mentality.

Let us come to the crux of the matter!

One reason why it is so easy to attack Atatürk's nationalism is that this legacy is no longer defended sufficiently.

The founding ideology of the Republic has, so to speak, been both an orphan and a widow for a long time.

This ideology is either explained in a shy language or completely ignored. In the resulting void, all kinds of labeling are easily circulated.

Unfortunately, an equation with no historical or theoretical basis, such as "Atatürk's nationalism equals Turkish racism," is being tried to be etched into the nation's mind.

Of course, at this point, let us strongly emphasize that the silence within the CHP is also noteworthy.

Unfortunately, no clear objection rises from within the party against these accusations directed at its own founding values.

Because the CHP is also captivated by the allure of a similar comfort zone:

Staying silent to avoid being branded "racist."

Yet, they cannot be unaware that silence means indirectly accepting this accusation. If they are calculating to get votes from Kurdish voters, by the time they realize that this calculation has failed, it will be far too late, and political Islam will have settled on the head of this country never to leave again.

Our people are being stalled with short passes in a narrow space; on one side, those who want constitutional texts based on ethnic references, and on the other, those who have a historical responsibility for the establishment of the Republic of Turkey as a nation-state and the granting of sovereignty to the nation legitimizing ethnic-based politics...

We cannot help but say, what a bitter contradiction this is!

In short, for Kurdish nationalists and those who abet them, politics conducted from within this comfort zone may work in the short term. It silences the debate, pushes the opponent to the defensive, and provides a sense of moral superiority.

But in the long run, it breaks the fault lines in society.

Let us put a period to our article by saying that one does not need a crystal ball to predict what kind of deluge will follow.