Fitna Mischief

Ahmet says something, maybe makes a suggestion.

How am I expected to react?

1) I might accept the suggestion.

2) I can refuse.

3) I can think about it and postpone my decision.

Another option:

4) I can ask for more information.

My reaction can be one of the three options above, or I can choose the fourth option, which is to ask for more information.

So far I think these are all normal reactions.

But what if I get angry at Ahmet because what kind of suggestion is this?

I guess this is also a reaction. Ahmet might come up with a suggestion that makes me angry. I can also consider getting angry as a normal reaction.

Let's not get angry right away, what if I start making fun of Ahmet because that's all you can think of?

It's not nice, but I guess that's a reaction. Ahmet may have come up with a ridiculous suggestion.

This kind of reaction to an absurd suggestion can be a bit hurtful, but let's say I have a bit of a character like that. Again, let's say it's a reaction that can be within the limits of acceptance.

Or what if I just ignore it, without saying anything?

He might think that he is not paying attention to me, or he might think that he didn't hear me.

But this is also a reaction. He may have come with such a suggestion that I thought it was not worth responding to.

Maybe I didn't really realize it at the time, my mind might have been on something else. Somehow it will become clear later on why I reacted in such a way. Again, let's say within the limits of acceptance.

Let's say I didn't do all this, but I was just being vigilant!

For example, let's say Ahmet says let's go to Antalya for a week to rest. And I immediately say, "Oh, what a nice thought, I didn't have any money, I was already so tired, I was wondering what to do. What a nice thought, thank you for buying me a vacation." And Ahmet is poor, he can't say anything, he has to say okay?

I think this is an example of a type of reaction, especially one of the tactical reactions that women use. We men are used to this kind of reaction from women. At least I can say that this kind of reaction is within my limits of acceptance.

But what happens if I manipulate this reaction a little bit on purpose?

For example, what if I tell Ahmet that I liked your Paris proposal very much, interpret the proposal in the way that suits me, and charge Ahmet for the vacation expenses?

Now that's a bit of an exaggerated reaction. Not that much! Still, let me say that even this could happen. Let's say it is within the limits of Ahmet's sense of humor and sincerity.

But what if I turn to the others and say in a way that insults Ahmet, he says let's go to Paris, who does he think he is, who does he think I am? Or what if I interpret his offer or his word in a completely different way? If I deliberately interpret it the way it suits me?

This is a different way of reacting now, I think it would not be accepted in any way!

Poor Ahmet, trying to defend himself by saying I didn't say that, but if my voice is louder, what good is his effort?

There are all kinds of people. Everyone may have chosen a reaction based on this example. Some of you may have thought of other ways of reacting that I have not thought of.

I think the reactions of the pro-government supporters to every word and every statement made by the opposition these days are similar to the last reaction example I gave. Every word, every opinion expressed by the opposition is being reacted to and commented on in a manipulated way. All of the commentators have made it their business to interpret the opposition discourses by manipulating them according to themselves.

Someone from the IYI party says that we hear the name Mansur Yavaş from the society, it is immediately said that this is a deliberate word. Maybe it is. They say the IYI party thinks differently about the candidate. This rhetoric is immediately fomented because there are cracks in the six-party table.

Abdullah Gül makes a statement.

By the way, I didn't understand why, but it was interesting to hear his voice after so many years, there was some effect of time on him.

Immediately they interpreted it as saying look, I am here. It was bubbled that he was added to the list of candidates. Immediately the Saadet party was asked, what do you think? Naturally, when they said that we would not have any objection, it was immediately foamed again that there were cracks in the table of six.

When a CHP member responded to a question about whether HDP would be a minister by saying why not, isn't it a legal party in the parliament, the incident was immediately stirred up. Again it was said that they are in secret agreement with HDP. There were comments that if they come to power, they will bring ministers from HDP. However, does anyone know what the context of this statement was? Does this opinion bind the party? And don't citizens in this country have equal citizenship rights? What is this marginalization? Doesn't every candidate need the votes of every voter? Anyway, this is an issue that needs to be examined separately.

Immediately they turned to the IYI party, the aim was to scratch fault lines, and for some reason they said there is no place for them where we are.

However, Meral Akşener had started her journey from Ahlat. What was the reason for this exit? What business do you have with the party in parliament, let whoever thinks how they think. Is there a need to comment? Look at the point you started from, okay, if you give such an answer to make it more effective, add the statement that we are seeking the votes of all our citizens. And what is this biased party image? Isn't our slogan "Happy to be a Turk!" Does it matter what the origin of the citizen is? Develop discourses that will make citizens of Kurdish origin think that you represent them, say that we are the representatives of all of Turkey. Prove it and you will become the first party. If you say you are a prime ministerial candidate, you have to be the first party! Why are you limiting yourself? With these discourses you exclude a certain segment of the society, which I think is the biggest mistake that can be made for a party discourse! This is my humble criticism. I just wanted to mention it by the way.

As always, Kılıçdaroğlu is being asked again if he is a candidate. Everyone is very curious about this for some reason. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu says of course he is ready. What should he say? Should he say no? Immediately, the headline reads "OK, he has announced his candidacy!" Then he says that the decision of the table of six is essential, but no one is interested in the rest of the words. I understand, the ruling party wants him to be the candidate very much, I think they see him as a candidate that suits them.

I guess his calm and moderate personality, perhaps his difference in beliefs attracts the government as a rival. They will humiliate him again by shouting in the squares, maybe they are planning to do so, I guess that's why they want him. Eyt, Mr. Kemal! Do you know who Mr. Kemal is!" they will start slandering in the squares. Maybe they think that these discourses, which are brought to the agenda foaming at the mouth at rallies, will help. Although they can hardly utter the phrase Mr. Kemal anymore.

So what is the purpose of all this?

The purpose is to sow discord among the table of six, who somehow managed to come together despite having different world views! The winds of fear behind the scenes arising from this alliance, this unity, are evident. No matter how much they try to hide it, it is obvious. What can we do to break this table, if only we could somehow overthrow it! They are trying to take every opportunity. They said a lot of things.

This much discourse cannot be done because they misunderstand. It's not like the story of Hasan the duck. It is not a matter of misunderstanding. They misunderstand and misrepresent, they deliberately distort.

In my dictionary, there is only one name for what is being done, and I know it is called sowing discord!

The purpose is to sow sedition in the minds of the gullible people of my country. This is what they are trying to do. There is no other explanation. The mountains of fear are roaring. And they see the solution in sedition and mischief.

And what is all this mischief for? Power! The desire to stay in power. What a sweet thing this power is!

You have already been in power for twenty years. Even if you had another goal, this is more than enough time to transform this country. So it's not working, it's not working. Or you can't do it. Another option is that maybe the yeast is broken. No matter what you do, it won't work anyway. Why are you pushing harder? This is what's happening, a corruption gang gathered around you, and a certain fan base. Anything beyond that won't work, no matter how much you want it to. Because the right yeast has already been stolen from this nation. No matter what you do, it won't work!

The man said he'd had enough of me in England and walked out. Yes, he was mismanaging. He said okay because he knew it. In Germany, Merkel quietly handed over her post. She wasn't governing badly. But he said enough. She quietly stepped aside. None of them have the love of power like us.

Believe me, I find it hard to understand, what a love for power!

But the winds of fear, fear mixed with the love of power! The solution is a discourse of sedition from the top to the bottom. Is this the solution? Sedition, is it? Do you think it will work? 

I can actually understand where this love of power comes from, why they behave like this.

Because everyone has a corner, they are afraid of losing their positions.

Because almost none of them deserve their positions and they know it.

Those at the corners know what might happen to them in the event of a possible change of power. I am not saying that they will be put on trial or anything like that, don't misunderstand me.

What I am saying is that they will lose their positions, they will be discredited. They will not be able to get their old earnings. They are afraid of this.

Those who are already involved in some illegal relations have already put their worldly wealth aside. Maybe they have already made preparations abroad. They are all ready to be the first to leave the ship if things get serious. You all know who is the first to leave a sinking ship. If the judiciary catches them, they will be punished anyway. I have nothing to say about that.

For now, this atmosphere of fear in the pro-government camp is revealing itself with the latest struggles. That's why they are trying to figure out what to do to discredit and scatter those on the other side. But there is also a boiling and bubbling among themselves. Soon it will become clearer what is going on within the ruling cadres, the smell will come to light.

Fitna! What a bad concept. The sister of sedition is slander! They say God forbid slander.

There is no remedy to prevent those with such thoughts. No matter what you do. Even if you say that sedition and slander is a sin, it is empty. On the face of it, they are supposedly more faithful than you and me. They themselves know very well what is sinful and what is good. But when it comes to being in power and benefiting from the blessings of power, there is no such thing as sin, they never stop talking about sedition and even slander. Because being close to power is something else, the head of the spring. One can give up all one's values for the sake of it. What a pity! I can't find any more words to say.

So what is the solution to this? What should we do? How should we react to this discourse of sedition?

Can there be a solution if we ignore what is being done, turn a deaf ear and go about our business?

What are we going to do about those who fall for this discourse of sedition? After all, people will vote when the ballot box is put in front of them. It is not easy to convince someone who has been misled and has a wrong perception.

We are not in the days of Socrates. Today everyone has the right to vote. In the democracy of those days, voting was the right of only a certain group of people who thought about the problems of the state. Fortunately, now everyone can vote.

Not everyone has the right to vote now, though. You know there is an age limit for voting. There are also some limitations for some people. Maybe we should abolish all these limits and restrictions.

If democracy is the issue, I think every citizen should have the right to vote, regardless of their age. Even if he/she was born one day before the election day. If he is a citizen, he votes! Maybe that should be the rule.

We need to think this issue through.

For example, there is a parent organization in schools for children, and there is also one in front of the state. If parents represent children, maybe they should be able to vote on behalf of children. Can't they? If parents represent their children in front of the state on many issues, they can also represent their children at the ballot box. I think this could also apply to those in asylums, or those who are seriously ill, or those over a certain age. After all, they all have a representative who is responsible for them before the law. Everyone who is a citizen should be able to vote!  In reality, democracy means the absolute sovereignty of the people! Aren't children the people? Aren't the people the ones who are restricted?

Anyway, we'll think about it later. Maybe one day we will analyze them in more depth. Let's get back to our topic.

If we ignore what is being done, if we don't at least do what we need to do in the meantime, that is, if we don't prepare well enough and explain our plans to the people one by one, in a clear language, we will be left in a world of self-delusion. The end will be sadness again.

So, in fact, silence is not very useful. But even if we try to respond, almost all the ways of reaching the public are blocked. It is not that easy to make our voices heard.

National channels that can be called impartial are almost non-existent. Most of the channels are either shared by the government or the opposition. Everyone can reach their own neighborhood through their own channels. The debate programs on the so-called neutral channels seem like a show to me. I am not sure how successful the faces that appear to be pro-opposition in these programs are in making comments.

Most of the discussion topics in these programs are limited to polemic level. In other words, the parties end the program with their own opinions.

And the viewers are left with just watching a debate.

I have written before about the culture of debate. Debate is sometimes useful, but it does not persuade the viewers on any issue because the topic is clear from the beginning.

At the end of the day, the performance of the debaters is evaluated. This one argued well, that one argued badly. In debates, no one is looking for information about the actual topic being defended.

Again, a show is watched. In my eyes, there is not much difference between a TV series and a debate program. If there is a little bit of a heated debate, it's like an exciting scene from a movie.

OK, I've said enough, don't get angry. I'll tell you what I think is the solution.

But how much more should I tell you?

-Where's your program?

-Why don't you tell me one by one, one by one, what you're going to do and how you're going to do it?

-What are you waiting for?

-Do we have to try to understand every sentence by pulling out some issues with tweezers?

-Why don't you say what you are saying more clearly?

If you think that there is not much time left, we will announce it at the last moment and the public will understand, you are wrong.

Here is a man who has been communicating well with the public all these years. He speaks with his tongue. He has the power to deliver promises better than you. He has all the facilities of the state at his disposal, he has many carrots in his saddlebag. If you loosen the mouth of the saddlebag a little bit, for some reason people like carrots. They forget the difficulties they have suffered until yesterday, they consider the carrot as profit. He will get the votes again.

And you sit back in your seats, wondering what we did wrong again. Come on, get a move on, there is no time.

This is what I have been saying for a long time. What more can I say?

It's not good for anyone to be so slow-minded, that's what I'm saying.

Love and regards to everyone from Moscow