First racist political party founded in Turkey in 2018, Turks presented as ‘superior race’

[Psychic]

The Chinese are destroying Africa by stealing all of the resources and raw materials while dumping masses of cheap goods. The new face of colonialism.

Actually this is an old form of colonialism adapted by the US after WW2.

 

[Zibago]

The Chinese are destroying Africa by stealing all of the resources and raw materials while dumping masses of cheap goods. The new face of colonialism.

https://www.voanews.com/a/chinese-overfishing-threatens-west-african-economies/3947764.html

@Nilgiri @Psychic @Gomig-21 @Hamartia Antidote

Well shit there is a new kid on the block
https://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/bi...ies_and_super_rich_exploit_natural_resources/
THe good thing is the new kid aint into delivering democracy on regular intervals

 

[HannibalBarca]

Since we are into racist subject...
Here a Quiz...

Who said that " You are "my shining star"
and To who?

Enjoy

ps: BOth are well known... In Europe and Worldwide...
@Kaptaan Any Idea?

 

[tesla]

its clear that this is a project party .why take it seriously

 

[Cybernetics]

P.S: I just copy/pasted the title, therefore it does not represent my views.

ISTANBUL

The Ötüken Union Party – Turkey’s first openly racist political party to run for parliament – was founded on Dec. 20, online publisher Duvar reported on Jan. 5, citing the yearly political party list released by the Supreme Court of Appeals Prosecutor’s Office.

Ötüken is a legendary capital city in both Turkic mythology and Tengrism, a shamanistic central Asian religion that once prevailed over Turkic states. The party’s mission entails pushing for Turkic values in governance.

Although the party has yet to upload their party constitution onto their website, their program says the party will serve as a platform where Turkish nationals may come together.

In order to be considered a Turkish national, you need to have Turkish parents and Turkish as your mother tongue, according to the party. Alternatively, you should be so “awakened” that you have simply become aware of your innate “Turkishness” as any natural Turk.

The party, which bases its policies on race, has singled out Turks as a superior race, vowing to shut down religious vocational high-schools, bring back the death penalty, stop the refugee influx and cancel the citizenships of those who have migrated to Turkey from abroad.

The party has also announced plans to have Turkish-only soldiers and police officers, and to ban marriage to foreign citizens under their rule.

Upon the possibility that Ötüken comes to power alone, the party would only allow “pro-Turkish lawmakers” in the political arena and in public offices, according to the report.

The education system would also be cleared of cults and networks, with Turkic languages offered as second language courses in schools under Ötüken’s hypothetical rule.

Ötüken’s statement said the party would remove religion classes from elementary schools.

According to the party constitution, the concept of nationality is the same as race.

“Our holy mission is to raise our race to a higher point. The goal of the Turkish race is to have authority over the entire world,” the program said.

The party also said the union of blood weighs heavier than the union of belief.

Of the current 88 active political parties, Ötüken was one of four political parties founded in Turkey in 2017, according to the official list.

The party’s founding chairman will be M. Hakan Semerci, according to their social media page.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/fi...-2017-turks-presented-as-superior-race-125310

Disclaimer: This is only a thought experiment, by no means is it a prescription.

The concept of Pan-Turkism is fascinating. Does this party advocate for a secular or rather a older religion of Tengrism and (broad?) race based concept of (international) Turkish nationalism (the core being Turkish identity) over the cohesion of Islam in internal and international politics? This sounds like an effort to re-balance Turkish politics to locate a stable core and continue along the path of secularism. Even if this is a fringe party, it plays into a broader sentiment within the Turkish (international?) community for restoring former greatness and engineer a path into the future. Whether it's feasible or not is up for debate, there are many counter arguments and forces against such a concept.

There is a common theme in the undercurrent between the Turkish and Koreans, both feeling constricted by neighbouring powers and desire to expand influence with newly (re)developed power. The common theme is also bounded by the desire to unify under a broader concept of nation, under concepts like linguistic brotherhood and mutual ethnic roots lead by the current national core of Turkey and Korea. The geography of this matter compels the notion of a Pan-Turkic and Pan-Koreanic partnership as this concept creates a Pan-Altaic belt stretching from the Mediterranean to the Sea of Japan. This arrangement is a microcosm of the power arrangement that is Eurasia with nodes of power (Europe and East Asia) situated on the peripheries of the "World Island". The "Altaic Island" is insulated (potentially isolated) by both flanks buffered by the inner seas (Mediterranean and Sea of Japan) and the lands beyond.

The success of such an arrangement or even the notion is deeply upsetting to the preeminent powers of Eurasia, specifically Russia and China. It is a potential wedge between the emerging Eurasian block and the leverage of terms dictated by Russia and China. From the Sino-Russo perspective, such an arrangement will always be viewed with deep suspicion and treated as an attempt at sabotage by foreign influence, namely America. The duopoly of China and Russia in Eurasia will be vastly more comfortable (for China and Russia) in comparison with an emerging belt with power nodes closer to their respective power bases.

Such an idea and attempt at manifest doesn't have to end in conflict or repeat of the cold war, it will become self defeating for all parties. The long term goal of Eurasia, in the interest of all parties is to operate in an environment of relative openness, low transaction costs, continuous development and win-win.

A possible solution is to engineer an "no-man's land" or a defined region as the "battlefield" for major power dynamics to play out (as no major power is willing or will safely allow to compromise on national sovereignty), much like wolves competing to become alpha, such competition is in the interest of the pack's survival as a weak/artificially maintained leader (without a foreseeable replacement) will bring about uncertainty (defeat of long term planning) and collective weakness. The social costs of engineering a "battlefield" will be externalised on the zone centred around Central Asia with the possible inclusion of Afghanistan and Mongolia. This doesn't mean lives lost or the downfall of respective societies but necessitates an era of rearrangement into a form more fitting of reality, which will lead to eventual breakthrough from the current developmental deadlock. Much like how the Russian/Soviet Empire engineered Central Asia, again it will be engineered to fit the dynamics and mindset of a new era.

New era of conflict within in this engineered "battlefield" will not be the clash of military hardware between major powers but a more simulated warfare fitting of our virtual era. Wins and losses will be determined by currencies, trade routes, development, resources, and ability to develop deep and long-lasting relations/networks. Not only will emerging powers be able to fulfil (partially) desires for empire but also actively construct a framework for mutual development in the process, creating a positive feedback loop of incentives.

The benefits of such a "battlefield" is the mindset it perpetuates, constant self improvement. Even if in practice the duopoly (or even monopoly) of Russia and China remains due to their inherent capabilities, the mentality will not be that of stagnation. Stagnant mindset might allow for a century of golden age (as societies reach their limit) but will eventually succumb to another century of decay. With the wisdom of history it's possible to engineer an lasting era of "Spring and Autumn" while rejecting the bloodshed and suffering. Spring and Autumn period produced much of the cultural heritage (Art of War, Confucianism, Legalism, state craft, philosophy, technological flourishing, literature) of the Chinese civilisation and paved way for its identity. The success of Imperial and Industrial Europe can find similarities with Spring and Autumn Middle Kingdom. The environment of competing states of comparable development is conducive to the development of human capital but at the cost of bloodshed. The end of such era (usually motivated by desire for peace) under a unified and very centralised system will bring about greater efficiency but will eventually (depending on inertia, limit, and external forces of system) lead to long stagnation until eventual and often bloody rearrangement. Simulating warfare will hopefully recreate the struggle of "Spring and Autumn" or Imperial Europe without death and suffering but this necessitates a new breed of mindset. No longer can we be purely driven by survival instincts like our distant forefathers but be active in pushing boundaries even when survival does not necessitate action.

There is a clear trend where the Eurasian landmass is becoming an increasingly claustrophobic community, distant empires are converging and for the sake of humanity, must learn to live with each other and embrace the competition. In our current era players are in the process of emerging and in a century long gearing up to compete in a global battle.

Much like how America and their seafaring European forerunners diffused the notion of truly global trade and internationalism into the fabric of societies around the world, even as their own societies increasingly reject such ideals, OBOR and its fruits will not be solely enjoyed by and burden bore by China but will again diffuse into a state of mind of the World Island.

This trend brings back the age old notion of a more pronounced global power hierarchy, the era of international liberalism or the delusion of such is fading (its values will live on in a subtler form). The new era necessitates a deliberate and overt engineering of societies that conjoins major power nodes and with information flows of the current era, any action is viewed under a microscope, there is no hiding. To cope with reality we must welcome the new era of realism and cooperation, for the trends are bigger than any one country or organisation can reverse.

We are at a cross road or nearing it, there are those that reject the notion of multiculturalism and those that fervently embrace multiculturalism. I appreciate both sides and agree with most of their points, they may be contradictions but is pointing towards a harmonious path for humanity. Why can't we have both? I think we can have both and it's better that way. The arrangement of the virtual "battlefield" necessitates distinct players meaning they have clear identities, interests, and unique elements they bring to the table for the collective unlike the slurry of multicultural ideals. Despite such conservative ideas, I also appreciate what multiculturalism has brought for the world but it needs to be better framed. Ideas and abstract thinking are the greatest treasures of humanity and it does not develop in a vacuum, it requires the seed and randomness of interaction and networks. We need liberalism to flourish in this world but we must not forget it only survives on the backbone of conservatism and unique identity, Yin and Yang needs to co-exist. A possible arrangement is the deliberate creation of zones of multiculturalism while preserving the cores of these unique players on the peripheries of this virtual "battlefield". Multicultural zones cannot be set to be all encompassing of the "battlefield" as they too have a shelf life, they expire when their particles dissolve into the solution that is multiculturalism thus bringing about its death and necessitates the planting of new seeds.

 

[Kompromat]

I love Turks but these guys smell like scum bags.

 

[Deliorman]

Why is africa always on the recieving end?

Cuz black africans in general are less intelligent and disciplined than whites and asians. Because they and their societies are more corrupt and backward.

A cultural thing.

 

[UKBengali]

Hope Turks do not vote for these morons.

 

[Islamic faith&Secularism]

I love Turks but these guys smell like scum bags.

Every living being on the earth has many differences physically or intelligently in population or even character; however, there are some similarities like instinct.

A rat, human being or a country will always and primarily care their offspring instead of the ones around.

The political correction sounds well in the ear, but the morality bows down to the reality in actual experiences in history of rat, human being or a country.

Do you think Pakistan or any country and you or anyone else you know is different given the history record?

 

[Desert Fox]

Well shit there is a new kid on the block
https://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/bi...ies_and_super_rich_exploit_natural_resources/
THe good thing is the new kid aint into delivering democracy on regular intervals

So racism is good as long as Democracy doesn't come with it?

 

[Gomig-21]

I touched a raw nerve huh?

@Psychic @Nilgiri @Gomig-21 @Hamartia Antidote @mike2000 is back​

Lemme go against the grain a little bit, here, but I do recall a thread where there was a discussion about the preference of people marrying within their own nationalities, or kind, and not very accepting of racial mixing within marriages. That being said, is it possible that this ad was meant to be simply along those lines? In other words, the Chinese girl merely prefers to have a Chinese boyfriend and not one of another race and that it's not an indictment at the black race or any other for that matter, which then begs the question, is that a racist attitude, or even politically incorrect in this day and age?

Given that aforementioned discussion in the other thread, I wouldn't think so. It's just provocative and there might even be a slight hint of unintended consequence.

 

[Offshore]

Lemme go against the grain a little bit, here, but I do recall a thread where there was a discussion about the preference of people marrying within their own nationalities, or kind, and not very accepting of racial mixing within marriages. That being said, is it possible that this ad was meant to be simply along those lines? In other words, the Chinese girl merely prefers to have a Chinese boyfriend and not one of another race and that it's not an indictment at the black race or any other for that matter, which then begs the question, is that a racist attitude, or even politically incorrect in this day and age?

Given that aforementioned discussion in the other thread, I wouldn't think so. It's just provocative and there might even be a slight hint of unintended consequence.

People forget, that Chinese don't have white guilt, yet.. they insist we must share their view..

 

[Cybernetics]

I am curious to know why some people are triggered over Chinese preferences? Light skin is a preference, has little to do with race, its been a practice for thousands of years and beauty standards are not the same as the west or elsewhere (there might be similarities). Is it because in your mind China is a rising power and as a preference you would like it to embody some liberal values of the West?

On the topic of China being "anti-immigrant", what are some arguments for allowing free immigration to China? It doesn't have a particular liberal ideology to defend, thus the rational for immigration to China would be how immigrants can better China, if a particular foreign group doesn't benefit China then it is not particularly wanted in the country. Emotionally I understand some people's frustration with China but that's not how China operates.

The video of the Chinese man talking to the African man is not racism, its quite common amongst Chinese to speak in such a frank manner when they are close with each other. I can understand that most people cannot stand such straightforwardness, it may seem rude (or even racist?) but doesn't seem to harbour ill intent.

 

[vostok]

People forget, that Chinese don't have white guilt, yet.. they insist we must share their view..

It is not white guilt, it is pure Western stupidity.

 

[Baybars Han]

The concept of Pan-Turkism is fascinating. Does this party advocate for a secular or rather a older religion of Tengrism and (broad?) race based concept of (international) Turkish nationalism (the core being Turkish identity) over the cohesion of Islam in internal and international politics? This sounds like an effort to re-balance Turkish politics to locate a stable core and continue along the path of secularism. Even if this is a fringe party, it plays into a broader sentiment within the Turkish (international?) community for restoring former greatness and engineer a path into the future. Whether it's feasible or not is up for debate, there are many counter arguments and forces against such a concept.

There is a common theme in the undercurrent between the Turkish and Koreans, both feeling constricted by neighbouring powers and desire to expand influence with newly developed power. The common theme is also bounded by the desire to unify under a broader concept of nation, under concepts like linguistic brotherhood and mutual ethnic roots lead by the current national core of Turkey and Korea. The geography of this matter compels the notion of a Pan-Turkic and Pan-Koreanic partnership as this concept creates a Pan-Altaic belt stretching from the Mediterranean to the Sea of Japan. This arrangement is a microcosm of the power arrangement that is Eurasia with nodes of power (Europe and East Asia) situated on the peripheries of the "World Island". The "Altaic Island" is insulated (potentially isolated) by both flanks buffered by the inner seas (Mediterranean and Sea of Japan) and the lands beyond.

The success of such an arrangement or even the notion is deeply upsetting to the preeminent powers of Eurasia, specifically Russia and China. It is a potential wedge between the emerging Eurasian block and the leverage of terms dictated by Russia and China. From the Sino-Russo perspective, such an arrangement will always be viewed with deep suspicion and treated as an attempt at sabotage by foreign influence, namely America. The duopoly of China and Russia in Eurasia will be vastly more comfortable (for China and Russia) in comparison with an emerging belt with power nodes closer to their respective power bases.

Such an idea and attempt at manifest doesn't have to end in conflict or repeat of the cold war, it will become self defeating for all parties. The long term goal of Eurasia, in the interest of all parties is to operate in an environment of relative openness, low transaction costs, continuous development and win-win.

A possible solution is to engineer an "no-man's land" or a defined region as the "battlefield" for major power dynamics to play out (as no major power is willing or will safely allow to compromise on national sovereignty), much like wolves competing to become alpha, such competition is in the interest of the pack's survival as a weak/artificially maintained leader (without a foreseeable replacement) will bring about uncertainty (defeat of long term planning) and collective weakness. The social costs of engineering a "battlefield" will be externalised on the zone centred around Central Asia with the possible inclusion of Afghanistan and Mongolia. This doesn't mean lives lost or the downfall of respective societies but necessitates an era of rearrangement into a form more fitting of reality, which will lead to eventual breakthrough from the current developmental deadlock. Much like how the Russian/Soviet Empire engineered Central Asia, again it will be engineered to fit the dynamics and mindset of a new era.

New era of conflict within in this engineered "battlefield" will not be the clash of military hardware between major powers but a more simulated warfare fitting of our virtual era. Wins and losses will be determined by currencies, trade routes, development, resources, and ability to develop deep and long-lasting relations/networks. Not only will emerging powers be able to fulfil (partially) desires for empire but also actively construct a framework for mutual development in the process, creating a positive feedback loop of incentives.

The benefits of such a "battlefield" is the mindset it perpetuates, constant self improvement. Even if in practice the duopoly (or even monopoly) of Russia and China remains due to their inherent capabilities, the mentality will not be that of stagnation. Stagnant mindset might allow for a century of golden age (as societies reach their limit) but will eventually succumb to another century of decay. With the wisdom of history it's possible to engineer an lasting era of "Spring and Autumn" while rejecting the bloodshed and suffering. Spring and Autumn period produced much of the cultural heritage (Art of War, Confucianism, Legalism, state craft, philosophy, technological flourishing, literature) of the Chinese civilisation and paved way for its identity. The success of Imperial and Industrial Europe can find similarities with Spring and Autumn Middle Kingdom. The environment of competing states of comparable development is conducive to the development of human capital but at the cost of bloodshed. The end of such era (usually motivated by desire for peace) under a unified and very centralised system will bring about greater efficiency but will eventually (depending on inertia, limit, and external forces of system) lead to long stagnation until eventual and often bloody rearrangement. Simulating warfare will hopefully recreate the struggle of "Spring and Autumn" or Imperial Europe without death and suffering but this necessitates a new breed of mindset. No longer can we be purely driven by survival instincts like our distant forefathers but be active in pushing boundaries even when survival does not necessitate action.

There is a clear trend where the Eurasian landmass is becoming an increasingly claustrophobic community, distant empires are converging and for the sake of humanity, must learn to live with each other and embrace the competition. In our current era players are in the process of emerging and in a century long gearing up to compete in a global battle.

Much like how America and their seafaring European forerunners diffused the notion of truly global trade and internationalism into the fabric of societies around the world, even as their own societies increasingly reject such ideals, OBOR and its fruits will not be solely enjoyed by and burden bore by China but will again diffuse into a state of mind of the World Island.

This trend brings back the age old notion of a more pronounced global power hierarchy, the era of international liberalism or the delusion of such is fading (its values will live on in a subtler form). The new era necessitates a deliberate and overt engineering of societies that conjoins major power nodes and with information flows of the current era, any action is viewed under a microscope, there is no hiding. To cope with reality we must welcome the new era of realism and cooperation, for the trends are bigger than any one country or organisation can reverse.

We are at a cross road or nearing it, there are those that reject the notion of multiculturalism and those that fervently embrace multiculturalism. I appreciate both sides and agree with most of their points, they may be contradictions but is pointing towards a harmonious path for humanity. Why can't we have both? I think we can have both and it's better that way. The arrangement of the virtual "battlefield" necessitates distinct players meaning they have clear identities, interests, and unique elements they bring to the table for the collective unlike the slurry of multicultural ideals. Despite such conservative ideas, I also appreciate what multiculturalism has brought for the world but it needs to be better framed. Ideas and abstract thinking are the greatest treasures of humanity and it does not develop in a vacuum, it requires the seed and randomness of interaction and networks. We need liberalism to flourish in this world but we must not forget it only survives on the backbone of conservatism and unique identity, Yin and Yang needs to co-exist. A possible arrangement is the deliberate creation of zones of multiculturalism while preserving the cores of these unique players on the peripheries of this virtual "battlefield". Multicultural zones cannot be set to be all encompassing of the "battlefield" as they too have a shelf life, they expire when their particles dissolve into the solution that is multiculturalism thus bringing about its death and necessitates the planting of new seeds.

Your comparison between Türk and Koreans are completely flawed. I'm not an East Asian historian but you said "constrained by neighbours powers and newly developed power"

Turks have been the most important power in our region since the Turks(Seljuks) arrived. Since then even the abbasid caliphate was ruled by Seljuks and the main power in the region, after that the Ottomans. In fact the 20th century was probably one of the worst in our history and we are still not that powerful. On the contract I assume in that region the major power was China for the most part and Japan a few centuries in the last 1000 years. So your comparison is wrong.