After meeting and marrying a girl from Smyrne of a wealthy family, he studies in Ankara and then goes to France with a state scholarship, and then he becomes Moscow correspondent of the Hurriyet, without knowledge of Russian language.
He is impressed by the African footballers of the France that brought the World Cup from Russia.
He is impressed by the African footballers of the France that brought the World Cup from Russia.
He is known for his conformist views as a self-claimed liberal. Although he doesn't express it that clear, claims his ability for the communications issues as good as that of Goebbels. It is anyway quite true.
*
It was true that France had been an important venue with her cultural solid richness and provided the cultural shield required especially after the WWII all over the world whereas the Socialist Soviets was the leading inspiration for the proletarian centered politics.
Why the France couldn't have taken this wind is an important question on the modern France. She is still good, beautiful, attractive, intelligent. Was the Socialist Soviets was her anti-thesis? I don't think so.
*
The homeland of nationalism was the venue of those who want to add something to their national identity in means of cultural, intellectual acquisitions other than putting isolation to the centre of all the political motivations. Maybe France had balanced the centrifugal (and yet exhausting) nature of nationalism within cultural fields and its invites and the politics had made a step, consciously this time other than the 18th and 19th century Europe, to the pluralist democracy without the need of authoritarian methods which leaves the power for political decisions to a very limited amount of decision-makers, in the second half of the 20th century.
Whereas the Francophiles in Turkey couldn't make this step. And it went worse after the 1989 and 1991. Nationalism has not been balanced, and yet any balance turned out to be perceived as harmful yet instead of finding a solution to this agony, blasphemous categories are enlisted by the democrats for the sake of democratization a bit quickly. Isolating someone has been endorsed as a norm which was the characteristic of his period, and i have to emphasize that it was quite an example of online radicalization, either in the name of a religion or so-called democratization. Online radicalization is the very essence of today's populism in any parties of the politics and it shouldn't necessarily be extremism like including violence (although defamation is quite widespread).
Nepotism have become a reasonable trait of the status quo as to enforce the ongoing order of things, which was once needed only for the good and nothing but the good, which then required many necessities as well as things quite observed in anti-democratic countries and with the absence of a political settlement within the wider population as the majority are usually more tend to serve the reality to effect the political decisions this tension was then "released" by employing "the politics", wether right or left, democrat or anti-democrat whereas the controversies of the system or society were then obscured in the name of "different perspectives".
Populism as to consolidate masses of people as majority is anyway may help to protection of the status quo. I won't make a general statement about the status quo like marx once did a long time ago but it can be good or bad but it is very often in countries like Turkey can not meet the demands of such a huge country and from that point any urgent solution to the inefficencies are obligatorily has to be within anti-democratic ways as the status quo has no constitutional reference.
It is sadly true that whenever RTE cites the nation, our nation he refers to the status quo, equivocally.
That was why i and people like me been in a very difficult circumstances to remind the society about the democracy and figure out its relation to the Rule of Law and democracy.
There is not embarrassment at all.
Nepotism can only be useful at the beginning but later as a place with different dynamics, like the press, as to be part of democracy but in itself having different axioms both to benefit from the social demand and yet employing it for various reasons, in itself the most observed way of survival for the figures is the chicken feeds such as both using the propagandist nature of the press and various stigmatization of some wrecked others.
Already frustrated proposal for the essence of journalistic work 5w 1h is not only exhausted but transformed and even instrumentalised.
Nepotism have become a reasonable trait of the status quo as to enforce the ongoing order of things, which was once needed only for the good and nothing but the good, which then required many necessities as well as things quite observed in anti-democratic countries and with the absence of a political settlement within the wider population as the majority are usually more tend to serve the reality to effect the political decisions this tension was then "released" by employing "the politics", wether right or left, democrat or anti-democrat whereas the controversies of the system or society were then obscured in the name of "different perspectives".
Populism as to consolidate masses of people as majority is anyway may help to protection of the status quo. I won't make a general statement about the status quo like marx once did a long time ago but it can be good or bad but it is very often in countries like Turkey can not meet the demands of such a huge country and from that point any urgent solution to the inefficencies are obligatorily has to be within anti-democratic ways as the status quo has no constitutional reference.
It is sadly true that whenever RTE cites the nation, our nation he refers to the status quo, equivocally.
That was why i and people like me been in a very difficult circumstances to remind the society about the democracy and figure out its relation to the Rule of Law and democracy.
There is not embarrassment at all.
Nepotism can only be useful at the beginning but later as a place with different dynamics, like the press, as to be part of democracy but in itself having different axioms both to benefit from the social demand and yet employing it for various reasons, in itself the most observed way of survival for the figures is the chicken feeds such as both using the propagandist nature of the press and various stigmatization of some wrecked others.
Already frustrated proposal for the essence of journalistic work 5w 1h is not only exhausted but transformed and even instrumentalised.
No comments:
Post a Comment