“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 topic in 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 transphobic bus 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 organization out of Mexico (all roads lead to America…) called El Yunque (“The Anvil”). Spains’s bien pensants look upon the Anvil as some kind of Neo-fascist Spectre with nasty fingers in every vital pie of the planet.

For her part, the Church appeared 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”).

Ad Triarios- Transphobic bus -Feminism

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 big money behind 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 marriages should 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 Puritan countries, he experiences internally with suffocating angst.

The System leverages this contorted phobia.

Homosexuals and transsexuals are an exiguous minority of 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 preferential legislative channels. 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 labor rosters 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 paternalistic enough 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 less than 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.”

(Continued in Part II)

April 11th 2017