Deutsche Frauen and The Left's Animosity

 

Contrary to – and significantly so – a popularly propagated myth, "Das Lied der Deutschen," which rose to the status of national anthem, had so little to do with Hitler and his "Third Reich" as did so much else in German history and culture which the National-Socialists abused with their own stamp and image. This is what any Socialists do, they break with all past, all culture, all tradition, all identity of a People. Socialism molds real people, subtly or aggressively or both, into an ultra-conformist collective of soulless mediocrity incapable of dissent.

The text was written in its entirety in 1841 by Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben, put to an earlier melody of Joseph Haydn's, and it was entirely in celebration of an historical milestone: the defeat of feudalistic fiefdoms and uniting into a nation under a Kaiser's crown, a Germany which would thirty-some years afterward realize a national Parliament, with Parties and a modern political form with the rise of a new and powerful Middle Class.

The first flag, black for the feudalist darkness overcome through the red blood of sacrifice toward the achievement of joy, of newly won freedom – was the precursor to today's Federal black-yellow-red in reverse order.

Hitler struck out the second and third stanzas in favor of the first, which oddly speaks nothing to National-Socialism, as I will shortly point out. The post-War Federal Republic took the third stanza and made it exclusively the current anthem. In both cases was this a sorry manipulation of a most beautiful anthem of love for a united country and nation, based on nothing other than simple heartfelt patriotism, an appreciation for living values, and brotherhood. This will be shown, word for word.

Before I turn to the text, of which the problem created over the first line is actually the trick to the whole farce, I should mention that as an American I've sung our national anthem often enough, with gusto and with the intended dramatic increase in adrenalin. We all know the content in this work, set as it is to a British drinking tune. The same also held true for me as a Francophile with lots and lots of school French, while belting out the "Marseillaise" - whoever is familiar with its content remembers "the blood of our foes spilling through the gutters." As an Anglophile (many Americans are) I also enjoy a rousing "God Save The Queen" if taking requests.

Now let's have a look at that "nasty" first line to the first stanza of the German national anthem in its complete form. Anyone who has had a little German but not mastered the grammar – or anyone who's had no German but is convinced to sort of make out what's being said there (after all the intended exclusive association with the Nazis) – should be informed right now, that the line in question is NOT, "Deutschland, Deutschland überall," which would mean, Germany Germany everywhere. NOR is it "über alle," which would certainly imply, above or over all other peoples and nations. WHAT IS however, the actual and the only phrasing is: "über alles." This means, in the truest, most authentic sense, a patriotic love for a nation above all the political infighting and petty interests of the day. (Like, I need to explain that one to an American?) “In der Welt“ is also not "auf der Welt," as the one means worldly and material, the latter would have carried more political notions.

Let there be no mistake: my assertion is by no means a matter of interpretation, it is squarely a matter of grammar. So please, an appeal to today's generation of Germans and the Leftists running the agenda, as to all Americans and Brits: before you run Germany down and continue reducing it's history and identity to 12 years of National-Socialism – learn some goddamned grammar first! Just a helpful suggestion.

The entire first stanza – if you listen to what everyone has been taught to believe and what the mainstream media still tells you – is supposedly verboten, illegal to sing. This is a lie. It is not, nor ever was. But if a hostage is broken by Stockholm-Syndrome and told not to walk through that door or something will happen, obedience will rule judgement.

Now that we've cleared up the matter of that first line, let's have a translated look at that entire text. Keep in mind, that the entire second stanza was rejected by the National-Socialists then, interestingly enough – and is likewise so by the Socialists today who ironically view it as "Nazi," betraying both their ideologized ignorance and certainly their contempt for native women of Germany, which nation and identity the Left is actively destroying and no one is lifting a finger to stop them.

Germany Germany above everything,
Above anything in the world,
If for protection and defense
Brotherly, constantly holds together,
From the Meuse to the Memel,
From the Adige to the Belt -
Germany Germany above everything,
Above anything in the world!

(So far so good – who can argue? Well, the Left, that's who, and the Greens – and of course the entire Merkel Regime. Uninformed Americans, Brits. Not the Russians, interestingly, not they. Now we get to those Frauen.)

German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song
Shall retain in the world
Their old beautiful ring,
Inspire us to noble deeds
Our whole life long -
German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song!

(The fact that this was NOT sung by the Not-Sees, one should find striking enough. It's a beautiful stanza, and it stands on its own. Who has a problem with this? The twisted "feminism" of today, whose agenda specifically carries more hatred toward men than any love toward women. In fact, as it emasculates the European male – I'll leave America to fend for itself on this one, I can't fight on two continents – it doesn't give a shit about women, nor women's human rights either.)

While demonstrating their highly artificial mastery at ideological hair-splitting on issues of practically no value whatsoever, when it comes to actual real issues of spouse abuse, or honor murder, or forced marriage, or hijabs-to-burqas, or sexual abuse and/or enslavement of girls, or massive raping of Western European women in countries across this continent as a direct result of the staged and irreversible flood of immigration of single Muslim men, or real-world patriarchy of truly enduring and die-hard intransigence – because these bespeak non-Caucasian, non-European, and Muslim cultures and ethnicities, to be really feminist is a taboo, out of the question, and replaced with a remarkably deafening silence on all of these matters.

The Feminazis and Metro-degendered of today, largely spoken for by a lesbian lobby of hard-bitten ideologues of the Left, are effectively out to destroy the European man and the European woman, as such: for being "white," hetero and somehow "patriarchal." For this reason the feminists-who-are-no-feminists, the Gutmensch world-improvers who only wreak destruction, leaving ruin and more suffering in their wake, choose to speak for the perpetrators in Cologne and all other cities where that evening had turned into a horror for many women. These self-serving champions of political-correctness in speech and text-writing in university lecture halls and even schoolrooms, these de-sexed and redundant relativists of a surreal political stage and age, are sacrificing everything which that second stanza addresses in all its fine joy to their idol of monotone mediocrity posing as rainbow-colored but in reality drab, dead, rapacious. And they have sold out on women everywhere, sold out on all true feminist values. That is the future being prepared here and now.

Which brings us to the third stanza. (There was a fourth which one can always google, but as it was never actually used it doesn't pertain and isn't germain to the main German matter.)

Unity and justice and freedom
For the German fatherland!
Then let us all strive
Brotherly with heart and hand!
Unity and justice and freedom
Are the pledge of happiness -
Flourish in this fortune,
Flourish, German fatherland!

(Sooo – is there a problem here? Didn't think so.)

Each stanza is incomplete without the other two. The third is almost pointless without, once one has actually read – and better still, sung – all three together. During most of our Monday Walks with and as Bärgida, i.e., the Berlin-Pegida while it still was that, we sang the entire three stanzas loud and clear. A daring gesture in the face of today's political climate of Appeasement, of tolerance toward all but oneself, of profound censorship, of scraping and crawling to pass muster in political-correctness, of singing accolades of mult-culti and vying with one another to bid "refugees welcome" without once grasping with what scorn and contempt and derision those "refugees" offer in return, of genderisation to the point of not knowing any more what one is in ethnic or national or sexual identity – nor caring any longer either.

I have sung this among my fellow dissidents in the open air while being shouted down by the abusive throngs of hoodlums of the Ork-like "Antifa" - who were furious (and still are), that this citizens' initiative, this Bärgida – or Pegida at all – still exists, still stands, still walks Mondays, still gives talks, still invites open debate, still enjoys police protection, still sings "Das Lied der Deutschen."

Because, rain or shine, come what may, we have exactly what they do not: long wind, long in the tooth. And that will turn the tide.

"Das Lied der Deutschen"
(Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben)

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt –
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt!

Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang
Sollen in der Welt behalten
Ihren alten schönen Klang,
Uns zu edler Tat begeistern
Unser ganzes Leben lang –
Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang!

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach lasst uns alle streben
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand –
Blüh im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe, deutsches Vaterland!

 

If I'm a Homo – Let It Be Sapiens

Some of my best friends are not gay,
nor lesbian for that matter – is that okay?
Some of my best friends might be either,
my being hetero concerns them neither.

Do I have to know with which gender you sleep,
any more than you must, which company I keep?
The reason that I do not know is that I don't inquire,
the urge toward such irrelevance awakens no desire.

Does my knowing if one's gay build mine or your character?
Is sexuality no longer that but only what's politic'ly correcter?
What's private, own and intimate no longer's sacred – all must know!
Then why is no one interested that I'm a flaming hetero!

A 'phobe a 'phobe a homophobe – is what I'll likely hear:
If I don't pass the Tolerance-Test I must be nursing a latent fear!
The trend, the ideology, the current coin, The Faith:
Believe in Gender-Mainstreaming and all that's preached as truth!

All perspectives, views, opinions have a place in true diversity,
except new dogma's dictates place a muzzle on democracy.
So yes, I'm Homo, I'm coming out – and you're one too, I've said it! 
We're both one Homo sapiens, kid, I wish you'd finally get it!

http://samuelinayatchisti.blogspot.de/2011/05/for-mevlana.html

I May Surely Get Whacked For This:

When gays or lesbians or bisexuals are simply permitted to be comfortable with their sexual orientation in an accepting society free of stigma or defamation, isolation, pressure to hide or repress this (or as in Muslim countries, murder or public execution) - that is a matter of human rights. That's it. I'm hetero, my sons and daughters all are as well. So? And I've always conveyed to them the inalienable recognition of human rights, whomever it addresses.

When, however, everything becomes glaringly, invasively, redundantly, unavoidably about the sexual orientation of Ls, Gs, Bs, Ts - and that they are somehow all "wonderful" for it - and YOU are sexist, homophobic and "white male"-fascist (wherever that one came from!) for even suggesting that you are perhaps becoming more than fed up with having a cartoony Rainbow ceaselessly shoved down your throat: this is Ideology. And, as I've often asserted and cannot stress enough: all good things turn rancid when they hit Ideology. Dogma kills, it deadens with the slow blows of a cudgel.
Fundamentalist or Fascist, Communist or Capitalist or Collectivist, Right or Left: it dries up all life with the same dumbing-down demand for compliance and obedience.

Are Jews "special" because there was a Holocaust or we all loved "Fiddler On The Roof"? No. They are Jews.
Are African-Americans "special" because of their forced immigration to serve "The Peculiar Institution" and enduring a century of Jim Crow? No. They are African-Americans.
Are gays and lesbians "special" because the overweening trend says so? No.
All three examples are human beings who have endured persecution and worse.
All three have also contributed vastly to our culture with their creativity.

Ideology is dictatorship over the mind, above all. It dictates what you may or may not think, what is "permitted" and what not - it is a "one-size-fits-all" dogma which holds you to a brain-sucking "political-correctness" and goads or intimidates or punishes you with propaganda and character assassination if you don't behave and get in line.

To introduce being gay as The New Norm would be like making Jewish or Black the "preferred" norm. If I run for office or am in some other public position, should I make being hetero the hallmark of my character or accomplishment? Why then must I know of someone's non-hetero sexual orientation as if that has anything to do with his/her actual values, judgement, competence, character, stability, suitability; am I homophobic for still considering the bedroom a private matter?

Here's another way of formulating this:
Ask a Jew what makes him/her "Jewish." You'll get a whole variety of possible responses, from biblical to philosophical to banal to humanistic, history and heritage, values and community. I'd wager that at the bottom of the list, if at all, you might hear circumcision or diet.
Ask a Muslim the same question, you get "no pork." That's it. A pork-abstinent Jew doesn't count, a vegetarian (from the Planet Vegan) doesn't count; only Muslims count, and without knowing squat really, most will give you as Number One Criteria: no pork. All else follows.

So I may get myself placed among the racists, sexists, homophobix, Islamophobix - please add antisemites - because the Ideologues and Lobbyists for the Cult and Culture of Political Correctness so dictate.

Still, I will maintain to my last dying breath at the ripe age of 150:
that every human being is to be treated with dignity and respect, kindness and empathy. Because s/he is Human. Not because s/he is special. No one is. But every One is divine in origin - no exceptions.

And that is what I pass on to the kids.

http://samuelinayatchisti.blogspot.de/2014/04/a-critical-look-if-one-still-may-at.html

http://samuelinayatchisti.blogspot.de/2014/05/reactions-to-my-lgtb-critique.html

Reactions To My LGTB Critique

Answers – in progression over two or three days – to a criticism of my Note on LGTB:

Jane/Aunty M.

I found this thought provoking...and worrisome. I have seen these trends before too.....To intellectualize and "straight'splain" the lived experiences of LGBTQI folk.

Stuart

The time from being a victim of persecution for your actions and beliefs to trying to impose your beliefs upon others seems very short. The Pilgrims come to mind. Is this human nature? I am right therefore you must agree with me? My way is right for me, but your way is right for you, what is wrong with that? Where is tolerance and love? Love for all and all for love, not all being the same as me, or all being the same as you. Being human has a great deal of uniqueness and specialness for all humans. Personal and transpersonal appears to be a difficult concept for many to absorb. Yes your Jesus's love for you is universal, but it is not my path, I say to the Christians. Yes Allah's love is universal, I say to the Muslims, but it is not my path. I love lesbians and gay men, I truly do, but it is not my path. We can all have our own temples and shtup in our own way with our own beloveds and all of us, in our own way can fill liminal time with the love and light of the universe that we make when we make our own vortexes, our own temples of love. Love for All , and All for Love. Stuart/Shemesh.

James

Wow. Okay. Where the hell do I even start?

Firstly, you are racist. The literal state of multiculturalism is the natural outcome of diaspora, with people moving all around the world. It's been going on since before Alexandria. There is no such thing as a 'pure' culture to begin with, and the policies nations make to facilitate peaceful multiculturalism - you know, the state where a pluralistic society can function without dissolving into warlord-ruled territories - are not part of some Great White Conspiracy. It has an awful lot more to do with the ability to fly half-way around the world for under $2000 USD, settle in a new place, and absorb (or reject) the customs and culture with relative freedom.

Not to mention, condemning the mixing of race as 'abhorrent' is pretty racist, okay?

1) The myth of homosexual and trans 'specialness'. This does not actually exist, except in the minds of straight (armchair) psychoanalysts. Gay people, by and large, do not think they are 'special'. They are, however, often damaged, and they have brittle self-concepts which may lead some people into narcissistic behavior. This isn't a part of 'gayness'. Straight people do this too. They abuse substances and feel shame about their sexuality and cut. So do some LGBT people. It is not because we are gay, bi or trans.

2) Straight guys speculating on the ability of gay men and trans people to complete 'inner work' makes me squicky. They and you do not, in fact, get to 'address' us, and tell us how we develop ourselves as human beings. You do not get to 'plumb the personal-societal hitches' in us. You can ask US how we develop ourselves as human beings, and we will communicate our methods if we desire to. Because we have this thing called 'agency'.

You don't actually have the authority to speculate on what makes or breaks a wise gay man - or a wise anyone else, for that matter.

3) Gay people and trans people still live with shame and misrepresentation, and under-representation, and stigma. Just because your social bubble doesn't seem to include it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

4) Being butthurt when people call you out on your opinions doesn't constitute persecution, 'political correctness' or suppression of free speech. You always have freedom of speech, which is the legal right to say whatever you want, and other people also have the right to freedom of speech, which includes telling you that your subjective opinions and feelings are offensive and you should probably rethink them. Persecution is someone coming to your house and writing GOD HATES MALE NURSES on your door, okay? It's when people key your car, beat the shit out of you, deny you employment, food, water or shelter, or abuse you because of who you are. Not what you say. *What you are*.

5) Critical thinking includes respecting the agency of others. Your essay reads like 'Speculations of the Persecuted White Man Upon the Nature of the Homosexual Agenda'. It does not represent critical thought or tolerance.

6) Including LGBT-related education in schools is not 'sexualising children with propaganda'. TV shows depicting underage girls in go-go boots and miniskirts is sexualized propaganda. Teaching young children how to respectfully and sanely deal with others in a pluralistic society is not.

7) Change gender 'with good reason'. Who the hell are you to decide what 'good reasons' are?

LGBT is an acronym used by the people in my community as a short-hand for aspects of their lived experiences. It isn't a 'sacred' political showpony for anything. By generalizing it as some bid for attention, you do a massive disservice to the people in my communities who have suffered and often died to establish a baseline of human rights which heterosexual men have had for hundreds of years.

The rights of others do not end where your feelings begin. You may have convinced yourself of your tolerance, wisdom and self-enlightenment, but I assure you that you're not fooling me.

Sam Inayat-Chisti

James - and others - thank you for sharing. It doesn't matter to me whether we view something with the same eye or conclusion, I welcome any authentic reaction or heart-felt response. Dialogue is better than blind acceptance of anything.  Yes, Aunty - I AM addressing a trend here, one which is quite worrisome, and that is the point.

Jane/Aunty M.

That you state it doesn't matter to you Sam, is, in fact, very clear. James has articulated my thoughts on your writing.

Sam Inayat-Chisti

When I wrote this I knew that some might not understand a word of what I'm saying and therefore not react or respond. Others would understand and perhaps relate but not trust themselves to openly express an agreement due to the pressure of political-correctness. Still others would partially understand what I'm saying or misunderstand it and either not react or react negatively or even express their version of agreement for reasons I certainly never intended. The latter cannot often be helped, but next to that I actually prefer those who, like James, have read it through and strongly disagree and express authentically and with passion – even if we remain in disagreement on aspects, I prefer this.
While I don't take James' or others' criticism of my criticism personally – however you express it, which I understand and respect – you seem to have taken my piece quite personally and I'm sorry to hear that, so I have to underscore one thing above all: anything good, risks being intellectually and morally compromised and hijacked once it's allowed to become an ideology – which does happen – and passive, unquestioning compliance toward any ideology, toward any agenda (corporate, gummint, or societal), especially when it has reached the forced and enforced dictate of PC-by-decree, is unconscious and dangerous. It is the death knell for Thinking, for Thought. Critical thought is the basis for deepening understanding, mutual recognition and renewal. Compliance will never deliver that – so where do we want to go with this?
One's sexual orientation or gender identity as one defines it for oneself (if one still can) is not only a private matter but a sacred one and one's right to be that and to own it. It should not concern anyone else or society, and persecution or ostracization is outof the question. I hope I am being clear on that.
I don't know which lexicon others are using, but according to my understanding: racism is hatred or contempt and mistrust toward any particular race, i.e., ethnic group – so what "race" was being addressed here, wherewith I come off as "racist"?
Sexism would have been a better attempt to diss me, however sexism is an outward societal expression of contempt or mistrust or need to humiliate, covering for a deeply embedded misogyny – i.e., toward the opposite sex which means in a male-dominated culture as we've known, toward women.
Either racism or sexism can be overt or covert, as with antisemitism, another "ism". Speaking as a Jew, can anyone here imagine me calling someone an antisemite because s/he doesn't consider Jews the best thing on earth since chickens gave us soup? Or doesn't share my brand of flag-waving Zionism or non-Zionistic recognition of Israel (whose policies are of course 'always right') or jump on the Holocaust-Industry wagon with the mantra 'never-again'? Frankly, my toleration goes so far as to tolerate anyone his or her antisemitism, racism, sexism – until that one is placed in any position of power at whatever level, whether lobby or political or autocratic. And then I will man the barricades, I will take to the streets, whatever means are at my disposal, I will always speak, and if it's at the cost of my life, for the weak, the repressed, the disadvantaged.
Are my FB-friends reading this aware of the persecution toward gays across the board in every Muslim country? That gay Palestinians who face mistreatment, even torture and execution in Gaza, scramble over that damned wall into Tel Aviv so they can just be themselves, and this among the "sworn enemy"?
Why does The Great Lobby never address the draconic repression of gays in Muslim countries? Why, for that matter do American "Christians" feel so persecuted when the real persecuted Christians are in most if not all Muslim countries, where you dare not open a Bible, erect or repair a church, but the mosques and Qur'ans are flourishing all over the States and Europe without any concern for local indigent culture or customs? Because another Great Lobby, calling itself Islam, has got the West by the short hairs and no one is (likewise) permitted to even question this for fear of "offending Muslims" – who are notorious for shunning hard reflection, introspection, self-criticism, development. My own views toward Islam after 40 years of Sufism are my concern, and that's for me to work out – yet I am anything but shy about critically looking at it.
But back to my statement from Gurdjieff concerning homosexuals, which brought this reaction oninthe first place: if one reads that carefully, I - i.e., he made it clear it was not one's homosexuality which mattered, but that generations-old conditioned shame toward it, coupled with it's corresponding and compensating notions of specialness. A very great American Swami who'd left behind a serious school of inner work and spiritual development, Rudrananda by name, or Rudi, was – so I'm told, I don't know because he never said so himself – gay. I can imagine this possibly being so, and it's not only fine, it also poses no contradiction here. What I find more interesting is that he made no matter out of it, it neither prevented nor enhanced his development – and knowing Rudi I can only surmise why: because he was free of shame over this or anything else about himself, nor did he indulge in any degree of feeling special (as opposed to – what, normal or ordinary).
I'm more in agreement with what you have written than may appear, but that's par for the course. I understand that my writing hit a nerve, so whether you can hear this or not, I do and always will embrace, for yourself:  manifesting as you are, who you are - with all dignity and with all lovingkindness.
Dear James – and Jane/Aunty – this is already much longer than I'd wished to say, so I'll close here, wishing any readers and/or commnetators well, and as always welcoming your reflective input.

Stuart

Reading this I feel some sadness but then I love harmony and agreement. It seems to me there is a lot of in group out group bickering going on and I will not participate in that. Love for All and All for Love, that is what I am devoted to and the conflicts of other I do not embrace.

Sam Inayat-Chisti

Dear readers! I'll say this, and if there is any failure of communication I'll consider it my own, as I had meant to include this point in my last statement, but it slipped my mind after all. No one is "special" - not the Jews, and not the gays. That said, everyone – every single person, being divine in origin and a fellow sentient being, a soul – is to be regarded as special, and no person is ever to be treated with contempt, ever. This is the very core of the matter. I would like to make that clear above all.
And among the several things Jews and gays have always shared in common, are these: a) you will always find both everywhere on the globe, in the most unimagined places and the most unimagined trappings; b) both are marked with a strong creative bent, and the entire film and stage and arts and entertainment industry would be nothing compared to what it is, minus the Jews and gays (Berlin/Germany at all, has scrambled these past couple decades to try to gain back a Jewish culture of arts and entertainment after having lost all of that to the Third Reich, as well as the sending of any known homosexuals to the Camps – during which, BTW, the number of gay SA troops back then could have alone filled several Concentration Camps, just one of the ironies of the Nazis – and during my first years here in Berlin there still lived and functioned one of the foremost local Neo-Nazi leaders, Michael Kühne, who was known to be gay and ended up dying of AIDS); and c) Jews and gays have even been found in numbers among orders and ashrams and monasteries and what have you all over the world at any time – but also found alike in Communist and Capitalist structures in history. So much for being special.
Now, as to male nurses and this hetero writer, and homosexuals: I'm a white Jewish male nurse living and working home-visits in Berlin. In the early '80s I was a home-visiting caregiver, in 1985 this was all in San Francisco. In that year I had a number of AIDS patients, this at a time when the current attitude was that so much as the merest contact with them without lots of protection could cost you your life. I never used gloves or any other covering, I came as I was and worked as I was, gloves for me were only for changing soiled diapers or shorts, cleaning butts and so forth -the obvious.
One of my patients was a Palestinian, one was Black – both died on my watch. All got the same physcial care from me, AIDS meant nothing in this equation, it might as well have been terminal cancer (which I also saw on my watch).
I had to take the bus up to a Twin Peaks residence for four or five nights running, during a two week period where I worked shifts back to back with about two hours actual sleep per day, money being tight. There sat my patient in the very last stages of AIDS, sitting upright in the living room while his partner, also now evidencing spots of Karposi's Sarcoma, created atmosphere in the company of friends in their circle playing pinochle or canasta all through the night. His very loving partner requested of me, as the patient had been a long-practicing Buddhist, to read to him privately from the Tibetan Book of the Dead. As I responded that it so happened I'm quite familiar myself with it and had read it at times doing night shift in nursing homes, we were agreed. The others, politely but nonetheless clearly seeing me as an unfortunately necessary hetero intruder who certainly must be carrying all his prejudices toward gays with him, especially when he says he's enternig the military later that month, these went on chatting and playing cards. I read aloud quietly, and this went on for the first two of those four nights. On the third night, upon my arrival, the patient was confined to bed, no covers, just laynig there and his partner very distraught. I followed all of his cues, he had placed pictures of the patient's teachers before the bed, and he and I lay close on either side of the paitent, I to the right, he to the left, and according to the patient's earlier stated wishes, we snuggled up close to him and whispered into his ears the name Amitabha, addressing this way the Buddha of Compassion.
The patient was skeletal, sweaty all over and smelling of it – and there I was, all white and hetero, without gloves or anything between my clothes and his body, closely cuddling him, my left arm crooked under his neck; his partner corresponding lay likewise. And so this fella expired.
We lay there for a bit, we opened a window, his partner needed a time-out and left the room. I said, fine, I'll just stay right here a bit. Actually my duties were all as of this moment over – officially.
I thought, hmm, I have time, the first bus comes at 4 a.m., the undertakers won't arrive quite yet, what to do with a body – what do they do in movies? Right: wash the body. Wasn't in my job description, but I have always been more than a job description. So I asked them for a basin and cloth and towel. I washed that body from top to bottom, I washed and turned it as thoroughly and as gently and attentively as if it were a still living person, and when I was finished I felt satisfied, now the matter was done, dignity was complete.
As I left the room and returned into the living room, the whole group, every man of them, stood there moved in speechless gratitude, and then for the first time in those three nights all fell into natural and easy conversation with me. We parted on the best of terms.
And you know what? There is nothing special in this. It is just being Human. Would anyone reading this have done otherwise?

Sam Inayat-Chisti

Dear Stuart, back in my early Berlin-barracks time shortly after arriving, end of the '80s, I recall a Black female GI who went about angry, you know, Girl With Attitude – and her t-shirt read, "It's a Black thing – you wouldn't understand." As she caught me reading it, I very gently informed her, "No, it's a Human thing – and I very well might." Yes, I very fucking well might. And this same girl of about 19 or 20, having issues with herself and her life, wound up in the military clinic after suffering a crisis, a suicide call-for-help sort of thing, upon hearing of which I dropped by the clinic for a brief visit to her and to ask how she was coming along. She smiled very sweetly and thanked me for coming.

As a hetero male nurse myself, and one who can talk about up-close with AIDS patients at a time when no one generally dared, it pains me to see how James and Aunty – neither of whose comments I'd solicited but neither of which I also rejected or wrote off – how swiftly they could write me off and not take one moment to investigate me, show any interest in broadening out of their shells, but regurgitated only what suited them. So much for tolerance. This is what you get with movements about tolerance, it's the death knell for exactly that, as no criticism from "outside" is tolerated. You have experienced this among women who don't want a man writing about Goddess, by which negative attitude they assure further ignorance – they are not for consciousness, nor are the ideologues of any matter or issue or belief or view. It's the nature of things, that good things always go sour when organized into a sytem of how-it's-gotta-be-now. These who have so responded toward you and these who so respond toward me, are as hooked on the unquestioning obedience they expect (and are now getting!) from the very public by whom which they had expereineced being or at least perceiving themselves as disadvantaged.

I don't know what Jane/Aunty's problem with looking into this was, but neither she nor James know me nor would ever take a moment to make this enriching by pursuing it one step further. Their loss. It would have run differently. If she really is psychic, why wouldn't she have figured that out? So much for psychic, for openness, for listening to what the other is saying (James filtered most of what I'd even said through his preferred lens), so much for tolerance.

The original critique follows, for reference:

http://samuelinayatchisti.blogspot.de/2014/04/a-critical-look-if-one-still-may-at.html

A Critical Look (if one still may) at “LGBT“ as a Lobby & Movement

Speaking as one who has since the early '70s been awake to the dream of, desire to see, the civil and human rights of homosexuals, male or female, manifestly recognized and implemented once and for all – and an end to their ages old persecution; speaking as one who abhors the continuing status quo of persecution, torture and public execution of gays in any or all Muslim countries; and speaking as one who feels we've not only long achieved our ends in this matter in the West – in fact, that we have moreover over-achieved in the direction of an ideological extreme, I wish to address what I sadly and critically observe, with the hope that the following cogent points might somewhere strike a chord at this critical juncture.

As often happens:  an old conditioned conformity winds up being replaced, not by the freedom to think clearly - but by a new conformity-by-coercion, holding us un-conscious and captive.  This produces no gender-clarity but more confusion, pseudo-scientific in some  of its more militant claims and contemptuous in its demands for over-relativized, highly generalized "gender-mainstreaming" - a new catchword for the sheer superficiality of our time.  As with the increasingly questionable manipulation of "multi-culti" - and the agenda hiding behind it, to so much as question what is going on is to have oneself re-defined by its propaganda: as racist, or reactionary, or right-extreme, as the case may be.

John G. Bennett, in his Third Way School (as I recall – but google him), had quoted Gurdjieff in addressing homosexuals and their capacity for development in the Inner Work. This inner work comprised – and frankly would comprise in any School which ever has existed or does, for inner development of the Human Being – three aspects, namely: the exoteric, or outer; the mesoteric, or middle; and the esoteric, or inner. This having nothing to do with getting "elite" or "important" about anything, but about actual development, no one – and I repeat, no one – was or is saying that homosexuals do not or cannot develop in a spiritual training. Having said that, what Gurdjieff, according to Bennett, did address, was that while homosexuals would naturally advance like anyone else with right effort and intention, in the outer and the middle aspects, there were two things which alone hindered, if not prevented, them from attaining to the inner.

Minus these two things, there would be nothing barring the homosexual from advancing, so it has nothing to do with judgement but very astute observation: those two being 1) the sense of shame they carry, which of course one does after countless generations of being shamed for what one is – but it's an obstacle to development, a no-brainer; and 2) their sense of specialness.

Now this is interesting, I was struck by reading this some 35 years ago, struck and fascinated, and confronted and challenged to really look at that. The observation rang true as I'd always tried to plumb, as a heterosexual male, the personal-societal hitch in the psychological make-up of my gay brothers and sisters.

Folks, we have achieved the half: we have removed the first of the two, there is no more shame; but the second has still to be dealt with, and there lies the phenomenn I see all around me today.

We keep taking a good and noble idea and destroying it through the parody of ideology! We can no longer be fair without getting stupid, we can no longer be constructively critical without being called nazis or fascists or negativists of some sort or another!

Friends!  When Political Correctness supercedes any right to the expression of critical thinking, and "tolerance" is the new coin for coerced acceptance, and to question a lobbied direction is to be branded without consideration as "discrimination" - what then becomes of Discriminating Wisdom?  For example, racism is one thing - while lobbying for all races and skin colors to be null and become one race and one color is as abhorrent as it is absurd - I like all the races and skin tones and I am for mutual respectful appreciation of differences.  I want all the nations and cultures to remain nations and cultures, and to develop naturally and progressively, I don't want a One World Government!  The EU and NATO strive toward exactly this, and are getting it.

I frankly still embody the coming together of the most varied of religions to have them meet, listen, share, mutually appreciate and come away with something new and fresh - and I want my Catholics to be Catholics, Protestants Protestant, Buddhists to stay Buddhist, Jews Jews, Hindus Hindus - etc.!  Sexism can be confronted without killing the erotic in ourselves through PC - or take abortion:  as a liberal-thinking member of our culture, I'm not "for-abortions" as the oxymornic "pro-lifers" would call this, I am pro-choice, and therewith equally dismayed at the coerced abortions of China or like attitudes elsewhere, as in former East Germany.  Returning to LGBT as a lobby, by becoming ideologized and rigidly overweening, the issues have become the new coin of "where you stand on..." - and woe unto you as parents if you do not want your child sexualized with propaganda at an early grade school age, making homosexuality such an issue over and above your right to guide your child according to your timing, to your lights, and to your discriminating wisdom.  Or have we no more self-respect before every movement and every lobby which dictates how you orient ...!

I was also, since those early '70s, for the right to gender change of someone who with good reason could never relate to the gender he/she was born into, because I stand for the right of individuals to have access to lives full of grace and good-will, freedom and fulfillment, dignity and development, and the pursuit of happiness. The cult and culture of Political Correctness and mindless Relativism is not about that and never was. It is about the same ol' same ol' of power and domination, regardless of who's calling which shots. The relativism of being Politically Correct does not make something right.

Introducing sex-ed into early grade shool, even kindergarten, as is occurring today – at least in the EU-Regime's New Europe, and Canada, if not also the U.S. - and teaching, not merely acceptance toward (as if this also belongs to this age-group!) the new sacred-acronym, LGBT, but preference of and deference toward – mixing everything mindlessly up so that no discriminating power of the intellect may exist and everything becomes a gray sort of-kind of mentality with no compass, no reference point or orientation available or allowed to any individual's own moral perception – is not nor ever was my idea of a better future.

But that is the future we are having dictated to us, as lobbying ideologies only can do: dictate. It's the way of the world, as usual: power, control, domination.

This is not Love.