I thought the caption, as bulky as it is, to be more immediately descriptive than Guido Preparata's below excellent two-part essay "The Transphobic Bus".

I have, for many years, wondered about (what I considered to be) the media promotion of non-standard sexuality (apologies if this description offends anyone, it's certainly not intended, but the topic is fraught with unthought of dangers and difficult describe at the best of times). I had concluded, without much consideration, that this was basically a media thing -- because my experience is that there are many in the media who are LBGT -- and it made sense to me that they would indulge their own predilections. Not to mention the possibility that there might, perhaps, be an underlying motive to "shove it" down the throats of those who adhere to bisexual relationships, due to the appalling social black-sheeping they have suffered over the ages due to their sexuality.

The fact is that I had noted this was happening but couldn't really get past this observation in order to manufacture a theory about who was pushing the agenda or why. Or even what the underlying agenda was. All I could intellectually muster was that there was an agenda at work.

It took a Preparata to bring this subject into focus for me.

“Transphobic Bus” (Part I): the Sex Toys of the Power Elite & Feminism





A close friend from Bilbao was relating to me a few weeks ago that the hottest topicin Spain at the time was the magical mystery tour of a peculiar “bus,” which was docking at every major Spanish city. On its side, the bus displayed the lettering “Los niños tienen pene. Las niñas tienen vulva. Que no te engañen” (“Boys have penises. Girls have vaginas. Make no mistake”). The ride of Spain’s transphobicbus is said to have sent shock-waves in the cultural ether.


Stories such as these have now become ordinary media fare. They follow a rigid script. On one side, we have the organizers of the tour. They come to impersonate the token homophobic, transphobic hate-mongering fundamentalist Christians (Catholics, in Spain). On the other side — in this tale of “two Spains,” which do not mix, like agua y aceite—,stand tall Spain’s indigenous shock troopers of “gender” orthodoxy,” who voraciously bit the bait. The transphobic bus has thereupon been ambushed and thwarted at every turn, and acrimoniously booed by these “progressives.” So now they are, once more, at each other’s’ throats and the rest of us are, yet again, “invited” thereby to watch and take sides in this all-important clash on “gender.” As if nothing else mattered.


Not to disappoint the audience, some sinister background info is de rigueur. Reputedly, the cabal behind the transphobic campaign —whose slogan is “Hazte oir”(“Make yourself heard”)— is a secret organizationout of Mexico (all roads lead to America…) called El Yunque(“The Anvil”). Spains’s bien pensantslook upon the Anvil as some kind of Neo-fascist Spectre with nasty fingers in every vital pie of the planet.


For her part, the Churchappeared to have been supportive of the bus at first. But, possibly, wary of being caught between the Mexican Anvil and the Pink hammer, she eventually sounded the retreat. And all her battalions withdrew — all of them, that is, except the token “integralist” brigade of the todopoderoso (“almighty”) Opus Dei.


Ah, the game. Il gioco delle parti, as the Italians say (“the game of role-playing”).




Of course, this was no “Hispanic” idea. These days, nobody in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter, comes up with an idea, good or ill. The forge is always in the United States, for better or worse. There already was a “hate bus” in America, itself the product of another US organization: NOM, the National Association for Marriage. It too was “vandalized.”
Now, let us be serious.


They want us to believe that America’s (& Europe’s) elites —for there is bigmoneybehind this massive campaign for diversity— have been losing sleep, tossing and turning in their beds, for years, waking up, drenched in sweat and anguished to the gills, from a tormenting nightmare. The nightmare that the “diverse others” —be they women, people of color, gays, or transsexuals— might be living an unbearably harsh life, despised as they are by the ugly machos of the world, who look upon them, with hatred, as diseased weaklings.


They want us to believe, in other words, that the potentates of the first world, i.e., people who, with unparalleled tenacity, have risen through the ranks of a system thoroughly exploitative, predatory, sexist, and racist; a system, to this day, thoroughly ruled by (unscrupulous, war-mongering) men, which is to say, still very much a “patriarchal” apparatus whose sole organizing principle is political management; they want us to believe, as if nothing else mattered, that these cynics are ready to lay down their lives, as it were, in order to give “the diverse others” —and today that means prevalently gays and transsexuals— “their rights.”


Really?


Unsurprisingly, the underprivileged people that are blandished by all these campaigns in the name of diversity cannot help but to be flattered, vindicated, and valorized by what they see as the progressive, unstoppable result of years of struggle. A struggle waged from the ground up in order to emerge, victorious and dignified, out of a situation that was unquestionably discriminatory.


But these persons, these groups delude themselves. They are being used.


There is no denying that the System perforce oppresses and patronizes what its leaders see as “the weak.” That is the direct outcome of the predatory mindset of the elite itself. I have explained this in my first post. The governing mindset was and still is very much that of the macho: viz., the world ruler is a white, money-conscious, weapon-wielding, technology-savvy, puritan colonizer. In his realm, women, homosexuals (i.e., “feminized males”), and technique-inept “savages” are all bundled together as sub-humans. This is how ruling whites thought and that is how they still think. Any concessions they make to the “sub-human” lot is never made for the lot’s sake, but exclusively for the sake of their own rule.


Now, how does the elite manage this issue? A vast portion, if not the vast majority of a society’s population sees no issue whatsoever with a person’s sexual inclinations, tastes, and proclivities, so long as they do not interfere with those of others. The sexual mores of others are ultimately a matter of indifference. In this sense, the institutionalization of same-sex marriagesshould present no controversy whatsoever. Yet, clearly, there is also a portion of society that abhors homosexuality. And that is for a variety of ingrained reasons and phobias, not least of which, in my view, is, within the “hater,” a deep sexual repression/obsession and/or a deeply suppressed bi/homo-sexuality, which, in Puritancountries, he experiences internally with suffocating angst.


The System leverages this contorted phobia.


Homosexuals and transsexuals are an exiguous minorityof the population. And even among the homophobic faction, those that may be expected to take (energetic) action against a public campaign in favor of homo- & trans-sexual rights, should the State decide to launch one, are extremely few. In any event, it is nowhere near any number that could possibly intimidate a State supposedly bent on “doing good.” Which is to say that if western governments had been sincere in wanting to make life easier and dignified for gays, they could have easily outflanked the homophobic barrier by passing an appropriate bill, swiftly and discreetly, through their preferentiallegislativechannels. Then, for the State, it would have been a simple matter of weathering impassibly an eventual public outcry on the part of the homophobic Right-wingers.


But the System did not do this; that was never the objective. The apparatus wanted the (propagandistic) confrontation to take center stage, and to be long and as contentious as possible —the design being to discredit, to destroy in the realm of “public opinion”a particular idea, a particular cultural mainstay which had theretofore held sway. I will explain.




In terms of “gender” transformation, they started in the 1970s with feminism.


Notice how the strategy is always cleverly conducted.


The grievance in this case, as in the others, is real. Before “empowerment,” women were indeed losing their marbles on the kitchen linoleum within the confined space of “the home” where hallucinated animism (viz. engaging pets and stuffed animals in a never-ending psycho-dramatic dialogue) kept them going for as long as the “professional success” of the male allowed them. Obviously, women have to be out in world and create. But what were they given instead? The same stressful, mind-deadening jobs as their husbands’ (for less pay, for both, in the end), and it is moot whether, in the long-run, they have spiritually gained thereby.


The reason why, forty years ago, the System unleashed a major feminist campaign pitting the neo-suffragettes against the traditionalist bastion was not to champion woman’s emancipatory getaway from the stifling strictures of the paternal manor, but rather to add her to the laborrosters of the Machine. The propagandistic fight was to discredit, and eventually eject from the technocratic console, that faction which, doubtless, was obnoxiously hyper-conservative, though paternalisticenough to advocate for the (male) bread-winner a stable (middle-class) income sufficient to feed comfortably a family of four.


No longer: both, men and women, now compete against each other, having to work for a pay that is considerably lessthan what their fathers (as baby-boomers) earned (at the very least, a quarter less income and 40 percent less wealth), with no prospects of security.


So much for “female empowerment.”



***

“Transphobic Bus” (Part II): LBGT, Elagabalus & Termites




Thus, Feminism ultimately appears to have been a ploy to harness, via labor,the other, theretofore “idle,” half of society to the soulless routines of the Structure. Thereupon, Hispanic nannies were to look after the children of working mothers (& fathers).


This was yesterday. Today, the maneuver has been ratcheted up one more notch: there is now talk of “feminization.” In other words, in their ceaseless and unctuous adulation of “Woman,” the elites are diffusing the suggestion that increased female influence on political affairswould pacify society. It would allegedly take the edge off the insufferably barbarous bluster of the alpha male, whose deportment is predominantly guided by invidious emulation, upmanship, and truculent swagger. This would appear a captivating suggestion were it not for the fact that, betraying their ulterior motives from the outset, its promoters ultimately wield feminization as a mere pretext for recommending increased contraception.


The feminizing contention, as advanced by a Harvard psychology professor, argues that woman’s “direct political empowerment, the deflation of manly honor, the promotion of marriage on women’s terms, the right of girls to be born, and women’s control over their own reproduction” would all contribute to a general decline of violence. This would seem especially true for the access to contraception, which, says the psychologist, would make populations “less distended by a thick slab of young people at the bottom.” By which he means — admittedly, in a not particularly feminized and nurturing phraseology— that criminals are the unwanted sons of mothers industrially impregnated by phallocratic cads.


Criminologists know this to be untrue. And as for the putative sweeteningof society as a result of more women in position of political responsibility — a (hypocritical) plank so tremendously in vogue these days—, there is no evidence whatsoever that it has taken place. To the contrary, we now have abundant evidence that, once they conquer top corporate seats, women act just as abjectly as the men that have co-opted them into their System. And these female VIPs keep breeding sons, and daughters, likely to behave just as abjectly and exploitatively as themselves (and their domineering, but politically correct, husbands).


In terms of peace and social justice, our hyper-modern world is certainly none the better for the larger quotas of women in positions of command. Sex is manifestly not the critical factor. The psyche, the “heart,” the particular mentality with which one tackles issues of justice obviously is.


Solemnly, the Harvard academic seals his paean for feminization by calling respectful attention to the experience of Tsutomu Yamaguchi —a survivor of both nuclear strikes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki— who, before, dying at 93, offered a prescription for peace in the nuclear age: “The only people who should be allowed to govern countries with nuclear weapons are mothers,” he sentenced, “those who are still breast-feeding their babies.”


I cannot think of a more repulsive image.


Yamaguchi’s thinking is all wrong. A conceptual monstrosity such as the one he uttered before departing is the result of spiritual exhaustion; it is an unconditional surrender of the heart before the new titanic deployment of the Techno-Structure. It is a lamentable act of pessimistic, enfeebled resignation.


How could one even contemplate commending such objects of death to the care of a breast-feeding mother? As if, moreover, a young, “lactating” Madeleine Albright would think twice before pushing the button, should she be given the wonderful opportunity to do so.


A world entrusted to almae matres(nurturing mothers) is a world where the mere notion of nuclear warhead is itself unthinkable.





Why the insistence on contraception? Clearly, most couples nowadays, at the going levels of remuneration and job availability, can hardly afford to offer a “good life” (high-level education, cultural travel, and wholesome nutrition) to a single childwithout going into debt. Decorated academics are, at one level or another, the representatives of the apparatus in which they are vested. As such, as in this instance, they are positing the problem from the vantage point of the apparatus, for which, clearly, the dynamics of breeding, and subsequently (“after the eggs have hatched”) those of function(who is to do what?), are matters of the highest importance. So important, in fact, that they cannot be entrusted to the individual discretion of the parents. The putative correlation between contraception and female empowerment is merely an alibi with which to cover the State’s prioritized distribution of resourceswithin the economy. Which is not to say that women should not procreate as they fit, but rather that the System, given the centralization of credit and its particular (& highly uneven) class structure, sees to it at all times that they curb their fertility, especially if they are poor.


And that is all the more cogent as the Structure also expects women to thicken the ranks of the military. No wonder the greater inflow of laboring females has not sweetened society: so much for the deflating of “manly honor.” And this brings us to the late transgendercontroversy —the latest instalment in the post-modern saga of techno-propaganda.
The so-called “Pentagon’s gender revolution” of the 1990s has initiated a de-sexualization of the armed forces, including the jet fighting squads, which are charged with one of the most skilled, devastating, and cowardlytechniques for mass murder (viz. bombing, through stealth, from on high). The late plethora of transgender items on the discursive space of public consumption —viz. the pink news; the incessant fluttering of rainbow banners; the vehemence and the acrimony; the diatribe surrounding “females entrapped in a man’s body” seeking shelter in the ladies’ room; and the TV shows and movies scripted to suggest the inexistence of sexes and the need to replace the male-female compound with a homogenizing notion of gendering sex, liable to being expressed in a multitude of bodily configurations and intercourses— all such items, compacted in this torrential flow of “gender erasure,” are not diffused to “ease” the body of society, which is unaccustomed to them, into “understanding,” and thus empathizing with transsexuals. (What interest could a cynical, hyper-modern apparatus possibly have in a group of individuals whose numbers are so marginal and whose “difference,” in terms of political economy, is so irrelevant?). All such “discourse” is promoted in profusion in order to erase, by way of repeated suggestion, the notion that the familial nucleus and its two constitutive, and sexually differentiated genitorial components, are merely a construct. The Structure does no longer need families and their patres.


What would the System gain by this mental erasure? It would gain the perspective of tightening its managerial grip over society by organizing it ever more like a collective of insects, like a termitary. Termites, which form by all accounts a formidable organism, are known for having the power to derive out of base larvae whatever sexual and functional type they so desire by way of special nutritional arrangements. In their morphological realm, they also dispose of a very specialized caste of warriors, whose enormous mandibular protuberance is such that they can be only (“lovingly”) fed, mouth-to-mouth as it were, by worker-termites.


It appears that hyper-modern Structures desire to reduce us all to insects, to sexually interchangeable creatures that are workers (& engineers), consumers, and warriors all rolled into one. Less than a year ago, in fact, the Pentagon lifted the banthat prevented transsexuals from serving in the military.







Hypermodern times are quite a (sorry) spectacle: it is something else to watch these white males in charge of the Structure burning themselves in effigy—in the (now disposable) guise of the “ugly machos”— via these postmodern rituals of depersonalized guiltenacted before stupefied (and manipulated) crowds of “diverse others.” The days of machismo are over. With technique, with power loads & computerized machines, “everybody” can commit genocide, everybody can do the job, even those formerly categorized as “sub-humans.” ‘Tis time to take them all in, and put them to work, for longer hours and less pay —and/or to enlist them.


They have got everybody fooled. One can only guess what other sex toy they will be brandishing next in order to have their termitary 1.0 pronto. All one can say at this juncture, is that, aesthetically speaking, all this techno-propagandistic endeavor, though crafty, is, for all that, the drab (& plastified) work of icy, unimaginative Puritans. In that other compartment, the aesthetic one, they actually fool nobody. It’s all old hat, and done without a shred of true artistry. For in such things, to carry them out properly, what is required is authentic depravity, sovereign libido, bloody abandon, and a form of erotic dissipation whose drift is the polar obverse of the authoritarian conservatism pursued by the techno-games of our era. Yes, this is a tale we have heard before.


Rome, in fact, had had a sensational rainbow season when the gods bestowed upon her a Syrian teenager as emperor. This was the legendary Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, aka “Elagabalus” (218-222 A.D.): a fabulous protagonist in his own way —a “crowned anarchist” said of him French playwright Antonin Artaud. Elagabalus was a woman in a man’s body, who, among the myriad “outrages” he is said to have committed, married men, twice, on a legal contractual basis, and women, six times. He called himself the Great Mother or alternatively Dionysus, and was fond of cosmetics. With sacrificial effusion, he worshipped the Sun (whose symbol was a black meteorite phallus) and, in Rome, wished to fuse its cult with that of the Judeans, to the great chagrin of the patriciate.


Hewas the only one of all the emperors under whom a woman attended the senate like a man, just as though she belonged to the senatorial order. He also established a senaculum, or women’s senate, on the Quirinal Hill, which, under the influence [of his grandmother], enacted [all kinds] of absurd decrees concerning rules to be applied to matrons, [on clothing and etiquette]. […] He would harness women of the greatest beauty to a wheel-barrow in fours, in twos, or in threes or even more, and would drive them about, usually naked himself, as were also the women who were pulling him.”


(I wonder, while driving his naked-lady chariot, how Rome’s flamboyant hermaphrodite emperor would have reacted had a transphobic bus crossed his imperial path).
Praetorians cut his throat in a latrine in 222 AD. He was eighteen.