For a while now, some documents, which will be shedding light on Turkey's history and which have the quality to make it necessary to rewrite many sections of this history, are being published in the Yeni Şafak gazette. That history is something that can be rewritten at any given time is a reality which can be accepted fairly easier nowadays. This reality arises from observing history from different corners under the influence of different events everyday. Different points of view dictate different histories. Different nuisances create different stories from historical events. However, historiography also has a side, which is designated by the data in hand and which is being re-designated by new data.
“History's lustful eunuchs“, as Nietzche comments, always exist and these come into play in every history argument and objectively mention that their history has not changed and the historical facts are the same for everyone. When data that will satisfy their lusts become evident, it's rare to witness a naive “deliver the truth” attitude.
Generally, people continue to remain dependent on their theories and point of views, which they were affiliated with before the data, with an outstanding loyalty. No historical data, document or discovery can/or will open their eyes. History, as an opinion not scientific information, executes it's dominance.
In plain sight, it's quite difficult to make a distinction between opinion and blindly adopted dogma. For example, everyone knows that Şükrü Kaya was at odds with İsmet İnönü. However, when it's revealed that these two were meeting or writing to each other in secret like two close friends, the first reaction may be either “documents are fake, because they were enemies” or “well, well, what's more we don't know about!” Which historian would not be excited for seeing a document related with a cooperation, which prompts to play the enemy outside and has convinced all the historians in a certain direction for years?
Eventually, the reaction you adopt from two will not have an effect on the historical event, it only shows how superstitiously you approach the historical information. Whatever the case is, it had happened and finished; you will have no chance to have an absolute or imminent information about it. To produce any historic document you may also use the “He is not a member of the Masonic lodge” document, which was given by the Masonic lodge in the 1960s to Süleyman Demirel himself when it became necessary. On this matter, the document is neither holding your hand, nor becoming an obstacle.
The reactions against the documents published by Yeni Şafak gazette, especially the ones related with Fethullah Gülen, and particularly the ones related with his masonic relations, were obviously carried out without considering the documents that will be published afterwards. When the rest of the documents were published, the latter reinforced the previous documents. It has been and is being understood that we are face to face with a datum of the rumor level. Frankly speaking, as I have written before, when I first saw these documents, my reaction was, instead of being surprised, that some of the information I've known and derived was being confirmed.
The attitude presented against the documents was a mass murmur and mocking laughter, instead of confuting it technically. The fuss made in the social media or the declaration of the documents as fakes by the known newspaper, are all approaches away from any kind of seriousness. You immediately understand that there are no documents that will open the eyes of this approach. Because no matter which document or datum you present, their reaction is prepared and is relaxing, even if it's temporary ; “It must be fake!”
Maybe it is giving a temporary relaxation, however it's predestined for all these documents to half-open those eyes. Maybe not everyone's, but there is enough enlightening light for the ones whose hearts are not sealed.
Before anything else, all of the things explained in the contexts of the documents are relations or events that can be easily seen by the people, who knows the structure and who are within the structure, unless they close their eyes.
What will insisting on that the documents are fake provide? Are the facts that; the structure is quite distant from the emotional mood of the Muslims nowadays, never had a worry like the religious community, is distant to the Palestine and Jerusalem case, is close to the circles and lobbies in the U.S. and abroad that are against Islam, and the structure's relations with lobbies, where help funds are being leaked to; are more innocent or defendable than what's being stated in these documents?
Besides, which document is required to expose and see the inquiries done by this structure towards the Muslims in our country and all around the world? Do we need a document to know of the relations with Kasım Gülek and the Association of Fighting with Communism? Are the revealed parts of all these lesser than the things propounded in these documents?
These relations and political attitudes, which you have witnessed more of, are not annoying you, but when they are propounded in the form of a document, it is?
Even the “It must be fake!” whistles you make while crossing the graveyard are giving away your position, be careful!
