The End of “The Great Game”

17 05 2017

by Harun Yahya

In the early 19th century, the strategic location of the Middle East, sitting directly between the British Empire and her colony India, made the deep state of the British Empire focus their attention on the Middle East. Securing and obtaining the control of the routes to her colony with the hopes of establishing new colonial areas in the process, became a veritable obsession for it.

However, it wasn’t only Ottoman Empire that became a target in the process due to her key territories like Egypt, Suez, Palestine, Iraq and Basra. Iran also had a very highly strategic position in the region.

As a part of its plan to secure the control of the region, British government at the time put into action what the historians now call the ‘the Great Game’ between 1830-1895 against the Russian Empire, which it considered as one of its biggest rivals to her colonial order in India.

The game was based on the idea of turning the Ottoman Empire, Iran and the Emirate of Bukhara into buffer states to stop the southward advance of Russia. This way, it had hoped, it could stop Russia from having land access to India and preventing it from gaining ports in the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean, which could pose a treat to the sea trade routes of the British.

During the process of great game, the British deep state surrounded Iran from the south and made it a half-colony, all the while robbing its natural resources and securing concessions in all industries.

In the meantime, in a bid to weaken the country, it used twisted movements like Babism, and Bahaism, which were created by the British deep state in the first place, to fuel sectarian clashes, for assassinations, riots, terror and unrest. The most prominent spies of the British deep state would be chosen amongst these perverted sects. Maneckji Limji Hataria, the emissary of the British India administration in Iran, led the mentioned project of creating unrest. [i]

The famine resulted in the death of some three million people between 1870-1871, wiping off almost one third of the country’s entire population. Ibrahim Kızılbas Zencani maintains that the England of the time deliberately caused the famine by gathering the food on the market and transferring it to India:

Forget about donkeys and horses; people begun to eat dogs and cats in the cities. In some places, people would start eating human flesh… There were countless bodies strewn on the streets eaten by dogs. On the roads between villages, bodies of women, children, elderly and young people that had starved to death, were lined up...’

The discovery of oil in Iran in 1908 became the key factor in the 20th century Iran policy of the British deep state, which was marked by military campaigns, social-economic projects, political interventions and political coups.

In 1913, the British government secured a contract that practically made the entirety of Iranian oil British property. Only six years later, it imposed an agreement, which gave it control of the Iranian army and treasury.

Although Iran had declared its neutrality during WWI, the British invaded southern Iran. Capturing the region up to Kazvin, and gaining control of areas under the rule of the Qajar Dynasty, they became the sole power in the country and once again employed the method of causing famine to weaken it, all the while blocking the aid efforts of countries like the Ottoman Empire and the USA.

After two years of famine, the Iranian population, which was 20 million in 1917, dropped to 11 million in 1920. British journalist Donohoe wrote about the painful scenes during those years in his book “With the Persian Expedition“:

There are countless humans that fell on the ground on the side of the street… they are dead… they are rotten… between their dried fingers, pieces of grass stick out… they tried to beat their starvation with grass… their eyes have sunken back, they are only skin and bones… they don’t really look like humans…They crawl on all fours on the side of the street…’

As the disaster was unfolding, the Bahai’s, which the British deep state was using as killing machine, unleashed a fresh wave of terror in 1916.

Although Iran declared its neutrality once again during WWII, the troops of Great Britain didn’t refrain from invading a large part of Iran and left in its wake a country struggling with poverty and starvation.

Even though the country was in the grips of famine and poverty, it was actually home to one of the world’s largest oil reserves. The reason behind this surprising dilemma was the British Anglo-Persian Oil Company (AIOC), as it had been controlling the country’s oil since the beginning of the century. Known as BP today, AIOC managed to increase its annual profit in 1950 to 200 million pounds, while Iran was making only 16 million pounds in profits.

Since 1908, Britain had been considering Iranian oil its own property and was fiercely protective of it. It had been using the country’s oil to meet its energy needs for over half a century, while the Iranian people were struggling with hunger and death.

Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was elected as Prime Minister with massive popular support in May 1951, started the National Iranian Oil Company and transferred the entire oil industry, which was under British control, to its Iranian counterpart. The British immediately responded with a series of economic and political sanctions against Mosaddegh for landing a massive blow to their biggest source of income. Mohammad Reza Shah also began to pressure the Mosaddegh government. However, when these efforts failed, a military coup was planned to overthrow Mosaddegh.

Upon the request of the British, US President Eisenhower instructed the CIA to organize a coup. After having organized many anti-government rallies throughout the summer of 1953 by means of the month-long ‘Operation Ajax’, the CIA carried out the coup with General Fazlollah Zahedi as the coup’s leader.

The great game that the British deep state started in early 1800 continues even today for Iran, Turkey, the Middle East not to mention the Islamic geography in general. The method is invariably the same: Inciting conflicts by means of sectarian, ethnical, racial differences so that in the end Muslims begin fighting each other. The only thing that changes are the names and faces; in the past, the Bahais were used. Today, it is MI6 Shias, MI6 Sunnis and Salafists.

However, today the British deep state is completely exposed. Soon, Muslims will put and end to their separation and disagreements and join their forces around the unifying spirit of the Qur’an. When this happens, the great game of the British deep state will come to a definitive end and not only the Middle East but the entire world – including the British people – will then find peace and security.

[i] Şahbazi. Abdullah, ‘Manekci Hateria and Bahayigeri-e Avvaliye’, 29 Bahman 1388/18 February 2010 , ‘Bahayism’ p.22.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Turkey is on the Verge of a New Age…

10 05 2017

by Harun Yahya

According to unofficial results, with a turnout rate over 85% and a 51.4% vote share, the Turkish people voted “YES” for the new constitution in the referendum held on Sunday April 16th. With this result, the amendments to 18 articles of the current constitution were approved.

Some of the important amendments are as follows:

Removal of the current parliamentary system and the introduction of the “Party-Affiliated Presidency” system and removal of the office of the Prime Minister.

The President is given the title “Head of State” and is given extensive authorities, including  executive authority.

Parliamentary and Presidential elections will be held every five years instead of four.

The age to stand for office is lowered to 18 from the current 25.

New regulations on the structure and assignments of the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors.

During the referendum process, the biggest debate was on the widespread concern over the fact that the new constitution could cause a nationwide risk of division  in the future by paving the way for a federal system in Turkey. President Erdogan and Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım often made statements pointing out that such concerns are irrelevant and no one can attempt to dismantle the unity and integrity of the country. However, after the increased criticisms indicating that a mere verbal assurance was not enough, the articles carrying the risk of division  were revised and overhauled.

One of the biggest surprises of this process was that the MHP, one of the most adamant opponents of the AKP, supported the ruling party. Thus, the new Constitution was approved by the Parliament by achieving the necessary vote majority thanks to the MHP’s support.

Since the April 16 referendum was ultimately a vote for constitutional and systemic change, it would not be an accurate assessment to dedicate the results to the ruling or the opposition party, or personally to Erdogan. On the other hand, we shouldn’t ignore some important factors that contributed to the distribution of votes in the campaign process.

For example, many voters who were indecisive or even initially determined to vote “NO”,  gravitated towards “YES” as a reaction to the rallying of certain circles, who are radically against the texture of Turkish society, their standards of judgment and national sensitivities, around the slogan “NO”. The most important ones among these circles, who were despised by the great majority of the Turkish population, are:  A number of communist organizations, members of the PKK terrorist organization, homosexual support groups, members and the supporters of the terrorist organization FETO, a number of traitors who revealed state secrets to the media, fled abroad and still cooperate with various Western governments, some artists, journalists and writers who, at every opportunity, complain about Turkey to foreign countries and institutions.

Moreover, the persistent “NO” campaigns of the mainstream media groups, think tanks and NGOs and their especially appointed writers and propagandists operating under the Western umbrella have also caused serious deviations towards “YES”, because these circles are famous for their unjust attacks, hatred and humiliation campaigns directed towards Turkey, Muslims and elected legitimate government and politicians in Turkey for years.

Assuming the role of apostle of democracy at every opportunity, as a matter of fact these circles have maintained their usual policies rather than respecting the democratic decision of the people at the end of the referendum: For example, in an article published after the referendum by Foreign Affairs, the media outlet of the Britain-driven CFR think tank of the US, it is emphasized that Turkey is headed into division by comparing the results to the darkness before the midnight.

The article titled “Analysis of Turkey” by Steven A. Cook of  Foreign Policy, included the accusations that the results of the referendum closed a chapter of the modern history of Turkey, and that the Turks who voted YES, intentionally or unintentionally, damaged the Turkey that Atatürk established.

In their extensive report on referendum, the British Times claimed, “Erdogan’s victory left a divided Turkey behind”.

Martin Chulov, the Middle East correspondent of the British The Guardian, has commented on the referendum result as “Erdoğan getting backing to strengthen his autocratic grip on Turkey” in his opinion piece that he wrote in Istanbul.

Similar reports and commentaries about the referendum in Turkey even preceded the Easter celebrations in some of the Western media. The live broadcasts and the headlines of the newspapers gave immediate priority to the referendum and the results were reported concurrently.

On the other hand, the various factors that triggered an increase in NO votes signaled that there are important issues that need to be considered urgently by the AKP and the Government. NO votes dominated within the intellectual circles who attach great importance to modernity, art, aesthetics and quality and who are seriously disturbed by any intervention in women’s freedom in style of dress, lifestyle and behavior, as well as in the coastal regions and the big cities of the country. This suggests that the government should place more emphasis on these issues or should emphasize that it does so.

The fact that these issues are not handled as competently and that some people and sections of the ruling base are following an exact opposite attitude towards these vital issues have caused NO votes to be the majority in the regions we talked about. Even though Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister are personally paying particular attention to vital issues such as quality, modernity and the comfort and freedom of women, it is certain that the necessary emphasis should be placed on these issues and special policies should be followed in order to eliminate these concerns.

In the end, anyone who cast YES or NO is still one of the precious children of this country, except for some small groups we mentioned above. The result could have been NO instead of YES; in that case Turkey would have continued on its path of peace, democracy and brotherhood, as it does right now. The important thing is to never forget that respecting the results is a requirement of democracy and to never appease  provocateurs who are trying to extract provocative material from both situations.

RIP Turkey, 1921 – 2017

Referendum Evaluation

2 05 2017

by Adnan Oktar

On April 16, Turkey went to the polls for a referendum for an amendment to its constitution, including the new administration system.

In this election, where the turnout rate reached a high level of 85%, “yes” votes took the majority with 51.4%, hence the “Party-Affiliated Presidential System” was approved.

Indeed, voter turnout rates are extremely important in terms of democracy and the ability for people to voice their opinions. In this regard, Turkey is among the top countries in the world. Turkey was ranked 44th in the world according to the International Democracy and Election Assistance Institute’s survey on average participation rates for the parliamentary elections from 1945 to 2001, with a turnout rate of 81.3%. Turkey ranked second among OECD countries according to the turnout numbers for elections held in 2011 reported by the Washington-based Pew Research Center.

However, election turnout rates are very low in many of the Western countries. For example, in the most recent US elections, in which Donald Trump was elected as president, the turnout rate was 54.9%. Europe also has low election turnout rates. For example, in the 2014 European Parliament elections, the turnout remained at 43%. While voter turnout in the elections in Germany where Angela Merkel won was recorded at 73%, for the elections held in Britain in 2011 the turnout rate remained at 41%. Meanwhile, voter turnout for the Brexit referendum in Britain was 72.2%, while the turnout rate in Scotland’s independence referendum was 84.59%, a number closer to the turnout rate of the recent referendum held in Turkey. In the Netherlands, the 2016 referendum resulting with the cancellation of the trade agreement signed between the EU and Ukraine only had a voter turnout rate of 32%.

Therefore, when voter turnout is taken into consideration, it can be clearly seen that the will of the people in Turkey is strongly and directly reflected in the number of votes cast.

Referendums, by nature, are democratic choices in which many technical details are discussed in the light of different views and different perspectives, many points are examined at length, and finally, conscientious evaluations are reflected in the vote.

It is known that in these “crucial decision” elections, many people who share numerous common values vote for different outcomes and people may vote differently even though they share common ideals. So in these yes/no elections, voters who vote yes or no have in fact very significant common ideals, such as making the best decision for their country. In the end, even though the result of the election may be determined by just one vote to make a majority, the separation or division of the country over the results is out of the question.

On the other hand, it is also very important for everyone to respect the outcome of the ballot box after referendums where direct democracy is exercised. Again, when we look at other examples, such as in 2016 with the British referendum for a decision to leave or stay in the European Union, perhaps the most important referendum in world history, it resulted with majority voting to withdraw from the EU by a very small margin of votes. Only 51.89% was needed to withdraw from EU. In the referendum, on which 34 million British citizens voted, 17.4 million voted for withdrawal while 16.1 million voted to stay. As with all the referendums and elections held in Europe and America, democracy was put into process and this decision came into force after passing through certain stages. All British citizens who voted to stay only did so to make the future of Britain better. As a result, this decision did not lead to the polarization of the British people among themselves, nor to the division of society. The same is true for other referendums and elections in Europe.

When compared to the last election, it can also be seen that 10% of the voter base under the AK Party and MHP, who were advocating to vote yes, voted no. So it seems that this is not a polarization, but a difference of opinion specific to this referendum.

Even though the votes differed in the referendum for the new administration system in Turkey, in reality, the main point of view has been the same for the AK Party, MHP, and CHP. If we are to express this point of view as a common discourse, it would be: “The governance of Turkey with a stronger, more democratic and better system.” These three big political parties all wish for Turkey’s inseparable unity, and its citizens to live in the best, the most free, and the most beautiful conditions.

As a matter of fact, the inclusive speech made by Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım when the results of the referendum were announced is a confirmation of all these statements. In his speech, Mr. Yıldırım emphasized the solidarity and unity of our nation with the following words: “We will have different opinions and solutions, but in the end we will protect our unity and solidarity with everything we have. This is the beauty of democracy. Having different opinions does not mean having superiority over each other in any way. We said different things on public squares, we explained different things to the people. But the last word belonged to the people, they said yes and ended the discussion. We said whatever the people’s will, we would hold it in high esteem. Our people have chosen, and they approved the presidential system… This election showed the level of maturity of Turkish democracy to the whole world. We are first-degree equal citizens of the Republic of Turkey. The competition in the political arena will not break our unity and solidarity. We will build the future with confidence in the direction of the choice of our citizens. There is no loser in this referendum, but the winner is Turkey and its beloved people”.

Of course it is our greatest desire for politicians to use statements that embrace all people and invite them to love much more intensely and frequently. It is our primary wish of all politicians and administrators that “love, compassion, tolerance and inclusiveness” are prioritized in politics not only in Turkey, but in all democratic countries.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

A Key Project Drawing Russia and Turkey Nigh: The Turkish Stream

23 04 2017

by Harun Yahya

Anatolia has always served as a bridge between the East and the West in many ways. First of all, it was the route Christianity took to spread to the West of which one can still notice the traces. Scientific developments reached Europe through this channel and European pilgrims travelled to China, India, and the Middle East again through this route. Even the Silk Road, which has been revived with a new name recently, passes through Anatolia to finally arrive in Europe. Anatolia today undertakes a big responsibility of carrying the energy supplies the West needs from Russia: The Turkish stream.

Recently, many people have probably heard about this new energy project that was endorsed officially by Russia and Turkey in October 2016. However, this project isn’t newborn as many might think, it hit the headlines in 2014 and has been known by public since then. However, it goes further back to 2005 as Presidents Putin and Erdogan had a meeting in Sochi when they talked about constructing another pipeline under the Black Sea. It was not finalized as Turkey thought that expanding the current Blue Stream would be sufficient for Turkey’s energy needs.  Therefore, after a long pause the two countries ratified the energy deal in 2009. Back then, Blue Stream II was the name given to the possible pipeline project and there were negotiations and mutual contacts to finalize this initiative, however, the talks did not reach a conclusion. In 2014, in a meeting in Ankara, Putin mentioned the Turkish Stream project after a long period of silence and at the end of 2015, the crisis occurred and the links between the two countries came to a grinding halt for a short period. It is noteworthy to point out the importance of this project, since the Turkish stream was the first order of business Turkey said yes to when the relations started to normalize.

Anatolia has always served as a bridge between the East and the West in many ways. First of all, it was the route Christianity took to spread to the West of which one can still notice the traces. Scientific developments reached Europe through this channel and European pilgrims travelled to China, India, and the Middle East again through this route. Even the Silk Road, which has been revived with a new name recently, passes through Anatolia to finally arrive in Europe. Anatolia today undertakes a big responsibility of carrying the energy supplies the West needs from Russia: The Turkish stream.

Recently, many people have probably heard about this new energy project that was endorsed officially by Russia and Turkey in October 2016. However, this project isn’t newborn as many might think, it hit the headlines in 2014 and has been known by public since then. However, it goes further back to 2005 as Presidents Putin and Erdogan had a meeting in Sochi when they talked about constructing another pipeline under the Black Sea. It was not finalized as Turkey thought that expanding the current Blue Stream would be sufficient for Turkey’s energy needs.  Therefore, after a long pause the two countries ratified the energy deal in 2009. Back then, Blue Stream II was the name given to the possible pipeline project and there were negotiations and mutual contacts to finalize this initiative, however, the talks did not reach a conclusion. In 2014, in a meeting in Ankara, Putin mentioned the Turkish Stream project after a long period of silence and at the end of 2015, the crisis occurred and the links between the two countries came to a grinding halt for a short period. It is noteworthy to point out the importance of this project, since the Turkish stream was the first order of business Turkey said yes to when the relations started to normalize.

With the first line, Turkey will be able to meet its energy needs and with the second line Turkey will serve as a conduit to transport the gas to the South of Europe. The transmission of the gas in the West Line through Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria borders will be halted when the first line of the Turkish Stream commences. This will be a political advantage for Russia given its tension with Ukraine and an economic advantage for Turkey since it will receive the gas without a transfer fee or a toll, and it can capitalize by charging a fee to the end customer. Additionally, this will also provide a security advantage for Turkey.

Since natural gas is vital for countries that do not have their own energy sources and dependent on other countries, the EU is seeking new ways of supplying gas for their increasing energy needs. This new project will also have a positive impact on the ties between Turkey, Russia and the European countries. Balkan states will feel more secure to have an alternative route since the Ukraine conflict previously disrupted supplies and the gas was halted.

Today, the world is filled with conflicts and especially in the Middle East where surprises come often and it’s anybody’s guess as to what will happen next. Countries benefiting from having good relations with each other one day, may find themselves at odds the next day. Therefore as much as possible, countries opt for self-reliance to meet their own needs and do not want to rely upon others.  For example, if there is a disagreement with another country to which they are dependent on, contractual obligations could be affected and may result in a deep crisis. Countries having joint energy deals seem to be more meticulously aware in their relationships since their need to be at peace with each other is pertinent to satisfying their energy needs. Striving to form agreements on good terms for energy deals should serve as a good model for other countries that are willing to form alliances in the region. Countries should be at peace with each other, no matter what, with or without any such energy deals.  Such relationships could foster and mature very easily if each country behaves in a selfless manner.  Moreover, energy has been the one common denominator for almost every period in history, in which alliances were built, borders were drawn, and countries fragmented into blocs. In the past energy resources were the cause of major wars, yet it doesn’t have to be that way and in the future it can be the source of peace.  Every country relies upon and needs energy to survive, thus pacts and agreements based on energy can and will bring wealth and prosperity to the region. In this regard, a great responsibility falls on the political, religious and community leaders, and the patriotic citizens to change their view on how energy resources can be used beneficially for peace and who are ready to make sacrifices to achieve such goals for the well being of the region.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

PYD/YPG: The British Deep State’s Pawn in Syria

14 04 2017

by Harun Yahya

Once the ostensible reasons of the war that caused the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people in Syria are set aside we need to look 200 years back in order to understand what has actually happened. The main target of the “Big Game” that had gradually developed by the onset of 19th century was to disintegrate and weaken Russia and the Ottoman Empire, the two great powers of the North Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Caucasus.

The main playmaker of the time when the USA was not around as a super power and colonialist wars were still raging across the world was Britain. Behind this “Big Game” phrased as “Consolidation of Britain’s domination over her colonies and their routes” in books and courses on international politics, there remained a much deeper and longer-term strategy rather than relationships based on daily interests and short-term plans.

Russia and the Ottoman Empire were systematically turned against one another and drifted into perpetual wars and the peoples of the two giant empires were provoked and incited to riots. Had Russia and the Ottoman Empire allied with each other, they would have probably been the greatest perennial power to oppose Britain.  On the contrary both countries were gradually degraded both by external pressures as well as internal turmoil orchestrated by Britain. The result was a fragmented map of the Balkans, Central Asia and the Middle East.

WWI which cost more than 10 million lives according to official figures ended in the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and Russia. As a result, there emerged a geography with hundreds of thousands of deterritorialized people, communities with shared histories separated by barbed wires, and myriads of warring sides that only served to feed terror. In line with this 200-year-old-plan, what rendered this system to gain strength were the pawns employed to tyrannize the innocent nations of this geography. These pawns pitted the indigenous nations against one another, established states or demolished them, drew new borders leading to changes in maps. 

The pawns in question were either treacherous weaklings or those attracted to the flow of divisive ideologies. They were Darwinist, materialist communists that sought an armed struggle, racists or those who remained under the influence of radicalism. They were all organized, trained, and empowered by the same hand, and then cast aside once their services were over.

An analysis into the four-year Syrian war in light of these historical facts would reveal that the same parties who agreed on the Sykes Picot Treaty – which was disclosed by Russia at the time – are again at work today. That is to say, this is another attempt to restore the 200 year old project of the British deep state of disintegrating and dividing the countries of the Middle East. The new map would consist of many small fragmented countries serving its interests. Today with artificial borders drawn on new maps, fragmentation of the countries of the region has commenced concentrating foremost on the division Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.

Undoubtedly the most convenient elements to use for such operations intending to disintegrate countries are terror organizations. The British deep state led the USA into the occupation of Iraq with deliberate inducements the result of which American foreign policy left Iraq in complete disarray. One of the most horrible organizations, which emanated from this wreckage is ISIS. Guided by the British deep state, the US paved the way for ISIS to emerge as a power in the region. It isn’t coincidental that the British recruits of ISIS outnumber other nationalities or that its notorious cold-blooded killers are fluent English-speakers. It is also noteworthy that its members mostly use British-made weapons. In brief, the British deep state, the main actor in Syria and Iraq, holds ISIS as a pawn in one hand. Which pawn does it hold in its other hand?

In its other hand there exists the Marxist, Leninist terror organization, the YPG/PYD that caused the lives of 40 thousand people in four decades. The YPG/PYD trained the members of all other terror organizations about spreading terror, massacring and becoming suicide bombers. As will be exhibited in the following pages, the British deep state straddles both ISIS and the YPG/PYD. ISIS is a terror organization that spreads terror with the most vulgar practices of radical teachings. YPG/PYD, on the other hand, an organization with mostly homosexual members, is presented by the Western media as the so-called “freedom warriors” and “the power against ISIS.”

Now let’s go back a little, and see how the British deep state has manipulated the Kurdish people in the region, similar to other nations in the past, for its own benefits.

The British deep state’s Plan to use Kurds against Russia and the Ottoman Empire

The British historian Stuart Laycock analyzed the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world to conclude that only 22 countries never experienced a “partial or total” invasion by Britain. Mr. Laycock compiled his analysis in his book, “All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To.” He stated that Britain did not invade countries such as Andorra, Chad, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, a small list she thought she would not benefit from.

Beginning by the 17th century, the British started to spread to Asia and Africa, and invaded many countries with India, China, Afghanistan, South Africa being the foremost. To the countries it invaded, the British deep state brought nothing but bloodshed, violence, enslavement, and poverty.  Furthermore the peoples of these countries were sent to battlefields they had no relevance to, in order to fight for the British Empire.

Passionate about not losing the region to Russia, Turkey or any other country, the British deep state had always considered Russia’s amity with the Ottoman Empire as a major problem. The ever-increasing geopolitical and geostrategic importance the region has attained with the discovery of oil accelerated the British deep state’s plots, making Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Arabs, Turks and other nations in the region the main targets. Academician Dr. Mehmet Temel explains how Britain at that time manipulated the people of the region, especially the Kurds, to drive a wedge between Russia and the Ottoman Empire:

“Britain aimed to complete the wall she wanted to build against Russia with Kurds and used them against Turks, Arabs and Iran. What rendered Kurds so important for Britain was the oil reserves in Iraq. However Britain could not implement its Kurdistan project; the dissent among prominent Kurdish figures and the majority of Kurds being under France’s influence zone required France’s close cooperation… The establishment of a British-friendly country was essential in Minor Asia, so that it could secure the East Mediterranean (The Indian Route).”

The British archives provide insight as to how these well-prepared plans were implemented and executed. Apart from sending pro-Kurdish agents or representatives to the East and Southeast of Anatolia such as Major Noel, the British incited separatist Kurdish intellectuals such as Sheikh Abdul Qadir for provoking them to take advantage from the Wilson Principles. The British documents relate that the ultimate aim of these efforts was to establish an autonomous Kurdish state.

A principle of the British deep state: “Divide, Disintegrate and Rule”

Rather than invading or making third parties invade a country it aims to disintegrate, the British deep state primarily leads a country to disintegration from within. It is certainly a less costly method than an invasion causing much less trouble afterwards. The British deep state mainly follows one course to disintegrate a country: It sets people of different ethnicities, sects, minorities, and even brothers against one another and thus causes conflicts and fights among them.

Division and disintegration fueled by hatred constitutes the main theme of the plot for an easy capture. Such a plot has a high probability of being successful especially in a region like the Middle East where members of tens of different ethnicities and religions live side by side in disunity.

The British deep state members expertly find and provide support to sinister elements to ignite terror, violence and even civil wars. They build the right conditions for division while taking precautions in tandem to minimize any potential social resistance to division.  Expert at stripping societies of their “faiths, beliefs, goals, purposes, love, spirit and quality”, the British deep state uses a global network of media members, politicians, pseudo-intellectuals and academicians to reach its goals. Most of the time, many fail to see the organized system behind the propaganda, which makes the world public opinion even more vulnerable to deception.

In the end, countries that are weakened, shrunk and divided through sinister plots become easy targets and are destroyed easily and quickly by the British deep state. The small remainders left are swiftly subdued and condemned to a new form of colonialism.

Only thirty or forty years ago, many would have found it hard to believe that Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya would be completely divided and small new states would emerge out of their remains. Similarly, most people wouldn’t believe that Ukraine and Yugoslavia could be divided into smaller states. However, one by one, century-old plans were put into action and countries are now falling apart in line with the British deep state plans.

Prof. Dr. Nadye Mustafa, from the Department of Economy at Cairo University described the current threat of disintegration with the following words:  “No large states will be left in the region. All of them will be turned into small emirates and countries. Every oil well will have its own small country watching over it. We should try to work out what we can do to prevent this project. We have to be vigilant and on our guard as a society. Unless we stand against this project together; intellectuals, academicians, journalists, patriots, we will all fade away’.

YPG/PYD are being used to divide Syria

When the British spy Lawrence said, ‘If I could found a Kurdish state, I would be able to eradicate the Turks from history…’, he was also summarizing the century-old policy of the British deep state. Unsurprisingly, in June 1919, British commissioner Colonel Wilson in Baghdad suggested to the British Foreign Office that an independent Kurdistan should be founded with British support.

This so-called ‘Kurdish state’ represented the British deep state dream of tearing apart ‘Turks and Kurds’, who have become flesh and bone over a thousand years in Anatolia, who have molded into one by bonds of Islam and who became a single nation. It also meant tearing apart Arabs, Nusayris, Turkmens and Kurds that became brothers and sisters in Syria and Iraq by turning them into enemies. Clearly, the British deep state is not working to protect or take care of the Kurds, but is only trying to gain an irreligious, unconnected foothold in the region, which it can use against other Muslims and countries.

This point becomes clear in a letter written by Mr. Kohler to Mr. C. Keer during WWI, which is now a part of the secret archives of the British. Kohler says that he does not care about the state of the Kurds or Armenians, but they pay attention to the Kurdish problem, only because of Mesopotamia.  The true target of the British deep state is the richness of Mesopotamia and not sharing this wealth with others, most particularly with Russia, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. This is also the reason behind the plans of dividing the region.

Former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston also proved with his words how the friendship mask of the British deep state is deceptive: ‘We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.’

The two sides of the Medallion: the PKK and the YPG/PYD

The Kurds are a very precious and important people in the Middle East, known for their centuries- old struggle for recognition in the countries they live in. They were persecuted in post-revolutionary Iran, oppressed under Saddam’s rule in Iraq and weren’t even granted citizenship in Syria. Kurds also went through difficult times in Turkey, and had to suffer the oppression of the terrorist PKK, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, in addition to the horrible assimilation by the deep state of Turkey. While the operatives of the deep state tormented even the patriotic Kurds, it was the PKK communist terrorist organization, which has been carrying out terrorist attacks in Turkey for the past 40 years, at whose hands the Kurds suffered the most.

This great people, who had lived through very difficult times over the years, finally caught a break under the lead of the statesmen Masoud Barzani in Iraq, while Turkey finally rid itself of its deep state. However, the terrorist PKK changed tactics; it stopped its attacks on the mountains as a part of the “peace process” in Turkey but continued its operations in cities with the new name of “KCK,” or Group of Communities in Kurdistan.

At this point, it would be expedient to look at the situation of the Syrian Kurds, as the state system that the terrorist organization has been trying to build in Turkey has already been established in Syria. After the intense military campaigns by the Turkish army in the 1990s, the PKK militants had to flee to Syria with their leaders. As a result, Syria, yielding to Turkish pressure, deported Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, who is responsible for the deaths of 40,000 civil people and Turkish soldiers the execution of 18,000 of his own followers. What was named the Democratic Union Party (PYD) in 2003 is, in truth, nothing but the very same PKK founded by Öcalan. The PYD has made it clear that it accepts Öcalan as its leader and that it reports to Kongra-Gel, in other words to the PKK (Kongra-Gel is the new name of the PKK after the PKK was designated a terrorist organization by the EU and US).

One co-leader of the PYD is Salih Muslim, who is pictured dining with Öcalan, and who gives his speeches under Öcalan posters. The other is Asya Abdullah, a female militant that lives in the PKK base in Qandil.

The orders come from PKK leaders in Qandil; the armed wing of the PYD is the YPG, or People’s Protection Groups. So, Syrian Kurds are severely oppressed under the rule of a Leninist terrorist organization which seeks to build a proletariat dictatorship.

In brief, all the founders of the PYD and the PKK are the same. When the PYD was established, it announced Öcalan as its ideological leader and declared its allegiance to People’s Congress of Kurdistan or Kongra-Gel (KGK). The PYD meetings are held under the PKK flags, and excerpts from Öcalan are read throughout the events. All the YPG militants who make up the armed force of the PYD go through both military and ideological training on Mount Qandil. These trainings are provided by American and British intelligence organizations.

In the 108-page report of Human Rights Watch in 2014, the PYD was held responsible for arbitrary arrests, violation of legal rights, unsolved murders and abductions. The report explained that people were detained without arrest warrants, prevented from seeing their attorneys, tortured and not taken to courts.

Almost every dissident was silenced and there were far too many suspicious deaths in detention. The report declared the PYD a direct affiliate of the terrorist PKK group active in Turkey and warned about its alarming behavior.

Some Western journalists also have made some interesting observations: Jamie Dettmer of the Daily Beast described the YPG, the Syrian arm of the PKK, as despotic: “Kobani Kurds are careful with [their] public criticism of the PYD, fearing retaliation. None who are critical agree to their family names being published.

“Most of the fighters in Kobani are not Syrian Kurds; they are actually members of the PKK, which is designated as terrorist organization by EU and the USA: The commanders calling the shots now in Kobani are not the local municipal leaders trotted out for Western media interviews to highlight the role of women fighters during the siege. They are instead what locals call Qandil Kurds, a reference to the PKK’s mountain-range sanctuary in northern Iraq that extends 30 kilometers into Turkey and contains the separatist movement’s military training camps.”

In the news report by the Wall Street Journal website, Zind Ruken, a PKK female terrorist explained the liaison between the PKK and the PYD as thus: “Sometimes I’m a PKK, sometimes I’m a PJAK, sometimes I’m a YPG. It doesn’t really matter. They are all members of the PKK.”

A communist Kurdish state, under the ostensible authority of the YPG and formed with the support of the US, will find a gateway to the entire Middle East, the Caucasus and to Europe, especially through Turkey, and will be a nightmare to the entire world, starting with the Kurds.

At this point, it is important to make a clear distinction; the Kurds are our family, our honor, our dignity, our friends and the embodiment of our greatest values. On the other hand, the PKK/YPG/PYD is a brutal terrorist organization that seeks to use Kurdish nationalism for its own purposes and wishes to build a communist state base on Leninist violence. It is critical to comprehend and make this distinction while assessing the ongoing situation in Syria.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Syrian Refugees Should Become Turkish Citizens

7 04 2017

by Harun Yahya

The issue of granting citizenship to the Syrians was one of the most important topics on the agenda for Turkey back in July 2016. The issue had been a subject of heated debate and attracted many comments, when the conversation surrounding this topic suddenly gained a new dimension. On the evening of July 15, 2016, Turkey faced a bloody coup attempt. In the wake of this treacherous attack, the conversation surrounding this issue from the perspective of Turkish citizens would deepen and continue for a long time to come.

Only one year prior in February 2016, the issue of citizenship for Syrians, which at that time had not long been publicly discussed, was voiced by President Erdogan in Bahrain. Throughout Turkey, the number of those who had a positive approach on the issue was in the majority; but as it is with every community, those who are opposed were also making themselves heard through various ways.

Let us summarise the refugee issue in Turkey through an overall assessment. According to official records, there are 2.8mn Syrians and 300,000 Iraqis currently living in Turkey. This rate elevates Turkey as a country that harbours the most asylum-seekers in the world. The money that the Turkish state has spent for the asylum-seekers, so far is $25bn. Those who come from Syria are granted the “asylum-seeker” status in Turkey.

Turkey  signed the UN Refugee Convention in 1951, announcing that it would only accept those coming from Europe as refugees according to the circumstances of the time. In 1994, the Turkish government announced that temporary refugee status would be granted to those coming from outside Europe. A new arrangement was also made in 2013 following the latest developments. This regulation provided various conveniences for those coming from Syria and Iraq, but still did not allow them to be considered refugees.

Although Turkey has mobilised all its means for the Syrians it hosts, the fact that these people do not bear the title of “refugees” deprives them of long-term opportunities such as citizenship, residence and employment.

Since the deplorable war in Syria continues in all its ruthlessness, leaving these people homeless, stateless and unsafe, the decision that has just been taken by the Turkish Government is quite accurate. Although the government has stated that the qualified Syrians will be gradually granted citizenship, what should actually be done is to give citizenship to all the Syrians in our country.

In this regard, security is of particular concern, and those who will be granted citizenship are required to have no terrorist criminal records and go through security inquiries. After undertaking these inquiries, as brothers and members of the same religion, it is our obligation to make our brothers and sisters, whom we have been hosting for years, citizens of our own country.

Turkey is a democratic country; surely, everyone should be able to freely express their opinion. Some may feel personal reservations over granting citizenship to Syrians and they can voice it as they wish. But it is important that these reservations are not a product of mass psychology, and that the reactions in this regard are founded on a rational and conscientious basis. Just like in every society, similar reactions might be triggered in Turkey as well, through mass propaganda and provocations. Turkey, however, is responsible for acting upon its conscience, not upon mass, egoistic or political accounts.

In response to those who are trying to present the subject of granting citizenship to Syrians as a political issue, government officials have stated that the naturalisation process will take place after the Constitutional referendum that will be held in March. Furthermore, the Syrians who are granted citizenship will not be able to vote for one year. This makes it clear that the decision is not based on accounts of political interest.

Those who have the false pretension that they will suffer from limited amenities when Syrians are accepted as citizens are worrying for no reason. With the breakthroughs made in recent years in matters such as welfare and social security, Turkey has proven to be a country that would not let its citizens be in despair. No one will lose their jobs, no one will go out of their business, no one will suffer any restrictions on their social and educational rights just because Syrians are granted citizenship. Guests always bring with them abundance. It is likely that the contributions of our Syrian brothers and sisters to the business world in Turkey will further expand trade links and business opportunities with the Islamic world.

One should always keep this fact in mind: If any Muslim around the world is experiencing hardship, all Muslims are responsible for the situation he is in. If a fraction of Muslims is in distress, it is the fault of other Muslims who remain silent and fail to unite against this oppression. So, the selfish approach of saying “refugees are not my concern” is inappropriate and a horrific viewpoint that can pave the way for greater disasters, especially nowadays when the oppression is more prevalent.

Turkey should indiscriminately grant Turkish citizenship to “all Syrians” who reside in its soil and do not pose any political and judicial risks. Muslims should raise a protective shield over those in distress.

The mechanism that steers the world is not political manoeuvring and profit accounts as people assume. The world runs metaphysically. The alliance of good will always prevail; it will always remain strong and powerful. It is our duty to always remember this fact and strive as hard as we can to become one of the good ones. And protecting and looking after the Syrians is an excellent opportunity to that end.


The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and

Page 4 of 115« First...23456...102030...Last »