It’s getting to the point where you really cannot make anything up. From the UK:

Proud dad Reuben Sharpe today tells how HE gave birth to a miracle baby in Britain’s most modern family.

The 39-year-old transitioned to a man 12 years ago.

But he still had maternal instincts and six years ago stopped taking testosterone in the hope of one day having a child.

And that dream came true when he and partner Jay had a bouncing baby.

Jay is non-binary – so does not identify as male or female.

The sperm donor was a trans woman… and even the DOCTOR was transgender.

And while a handful of other UK men have fallen pregnant after transitioning from a woman, Reuben and Jay are among the first couples to speak out about their remarkable journey.

Pictures and everything. Just one happy family. Two biological females, one presenting as a transman, the other, who had her breasts lopped off, as non-binary. And their baby … well, the newspaper story doesn’t state the sex of the child. Which I guess is how these weirdos want it.

I can hear the liberal caterwaul now: “How is that non-traditional family going to hurt yours, you bigot?” Well, let’s see.

Today is the 30th anniversary of the death of Augusto del Noce, the Italian political philosopher, whose work has been introduced to the English-speaking world through the hard work of his translator, Prof. Carlo Lancellotti (see here). He’s a great follow on Twitter: @_CLancellotti . This morning on Twitter, Prof. Lancellotti highlighted this long essay in Tempi by Luca del Pozzo as the best recent summary he has seen of Del Noce’s thought and its meaning. The piece is in Italian, but if you browse with Chrome, it will give you a rough translation.

In these paragraph, which I’ve cleaned up a bit from the Google translation, Del Pozzo (and Del Noce) talk about the significance of the Sexual Revolution:

Therefore, the [Wilhelm] Reich buzzword adopted by the ’68ers was: sexual liberation. But this implied breaking down the repressive social institution par excellence, that is, the traditional monogamous family as the bearer of the idea of ​​tradition, that is, of an order of truth immutable to, precisely, betray , transmit, deliver from one generation to another. If in fact there is no order of immutable values ​​and meta-empirical truths, it follows that the family, appointed to transmit that order, no longer has reason to exist. The reason for such fury against the family is clear [says Del Noce]:

“The idea of ​​an indissoluble monogamous marriage and the correlatives (modesty, purity, continence) are linked to that of tradition which, in turn, as” betraying “is to deliver, presupposes that of an objective order of immutable and permanent truths … But if we separate the idea of ​​tradition from that of objective order, it must necessarily appear as the “past”, as “what is overcome”, as “the dead man who wants to suffocate the living”; as what must be denied in order to regain psychic balance. The idea of ​​indissoluble marriage must be replaced by free, renewable or soluble union at any time. We cannot speak of sexual perversions, indeed homosexual forms, male or female, must be considered as pure forms of love.”

To make this more clear: if there are no objective, transcendent truths, only human desires, then the traditional family can only be seen as an obstacle to be conquered for the sake of liberating those desires.  More from the Mirror story:

The couple are confident their family situation will be seen as normal as the baby grows up surrounded by like-minded people in their home town of Brighton. Jay says: “It’s about having the right kind of community around us so they are able to see different kinds of family set-ups.

“All we can do is try to be really open from the start with them and other people around us – give them the best chance.”

And although Reuben carried the baby this time, Jay would be open to doing so in the future. They plan to marry next year and are keen not to be boxed off into mum and dad roles.

This is how the memory of what it means to be a mother, a father, a child, and a family, is erased from our culture. The radicalism of this is without precedent in human history. I do not understand why we’re just taking this in passing. We are collectively destroying the only stable basis for human civilization — and we call it progress, and celebrate it in our mass media. And in England, where this trio lives, if you publicly deny that they are exactly who they claim to be, you could stand denounced by a court for possessing opinions “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

This is what that family in England has to do with you.

This cannot stand. Reality will eventually reassert itself. Family, like manhood and womanhood, is written into the fabric of our nature. But first, we have to endure an immense amount of destruction and suffering.

I am gobsmacked by the silence of most religious leaders, and conservative politicians, in the face of this revolution. If you won’t defend the family, you won’t defend civilization. These people, these professional conservatives, will not defend the traditional family, or even men-as-men, and women-as-women. Just like that, the family, man, and woman, all being erased, with barely a peep from the Right. And even more critically, they will not defend the few people who do take a risk to defend these permanent things. They are desperate to avoid being called bigots. They are content to proffer themselves as the more competent and restrained managers of our terminal decline.

Tucker Carlson recently gave a magnificent rant on the uselessness of conservative politicians in the face of our cultural collapse. Excerpts:

Carlson also said he does not hold anything personally against those places, like the Heritage Foundation or AEI or others, but that this issue exposes how there is nobody defending the speech rights of dissenters from the conventional wisdom or status quo.

“By the way, I have a million friends at Heritage and AEI and they’re super nice people there and I agree with them on most things,” Carlson said. “I’m not saying they’re the most evil people. I’m not saying they’re the main problem. I don’t want to overstate it. But what I am saying is they’re supposed to be looking out for our interests and protecting them, and they’re not. And by the way, who is? So, if you’re a conservative right now—or a whatever, I don’t even know what the word is—maybe that’s not the word. But if you’re not ‘with the program,’ if you don’t believe ‘diversity is our strength,’ and if you don’t repeat mindlessly the catechism and nod with bovine compliance, if you’re out of step with the ‘mainstream’ in public, who’s stepping up to protect your right to say what you think and think what you think and live in this country without being hurt? Like, who’s protecting you? The answer is nobody. The president is not protecting you, that’s for sure. The Congress is not protecting you. These think tanks aren’t protecting you. Who’s protecting you? Who’s on your side? I’m serious. I’m sensitive to this because I’m serious and I live in this world and you see someone step up and say something interesting and then have their lives taken away from them. They can’t talk in public and then they can’t have a job and they’re discredited and then what?”

More:

“Conservatives need to—I’ll tell you this, I’ve lived in D.C. since 1985, okay? And I’ve been a right-winger the whole time, so I know a lot about this world, okay? I’m not guessing, I have personal knowledge about it,” Carlson said. “But increasingly they [conservatives] are very good at whining about how biased everyone is against them, which is a very unattractive quality I think. When my children whine and complain about how biased people are against them, I tell them to be quiet. I don’t like that. It’s not good for you to whine and engage in self-pity. But what they [conservatives] are not good at is setting their own terms. They let the left set the terms. So some leftwing activist group will show up and say ‘you’re no longer allowed to say X.’ I don’t know what it is, just pick something. Out with ‘the Orient,’ in with ‘Asia.’ Maybe that’s okay, maybe it’s not okay. Maybe it’s a good change, or maybe it’s a bad change. But the fact is they [the left] decide unilaterally what the changes are and then everyone else kind of has to go along with it. There’s no vote. It’s like the left decides what you’re allowed to say. Conservatives, the institutions, have found themselves in this position where they’re like trustees in a prison, where they’re carrying out the orders of the warden. The warden in this case is like the institutional left. Why are we doing this? Why are we playing along? It’s especially, it’s almost like the left is trying to see how ludicrous they can make it. You send out a tweet saying ‘men can menstruate too.’ Anyone who laughs is punished. When that happens, they’re challenging us. They’re basically saying ‘we can make you,’ this is 1984, this is Winston Smith, ‘we can make you say this. And then we can make you believe it. Watch us.’ ‘Repeat after me: Men can menstruate too.’ Then after a while you’re like ‘yeah, men can menstruate too, for sure.’ That’s when you’re a zombie. That’s when your soul is gone. That’s when they’re fully in charge of you. You’re just hunk of flesh, and you’re like a ventriloquist dummy at that point. That’s what happens.”

Yep.

UPDATE: Father Jim Sichko, commissioned by Pope Francis as a full-time “papal missionary for mercy,” has blocked me from reading his tweets, but a reader posted this one from him in the comments section:

UPDATE.2: Let me clarify that Tucker Carlson’s jeremiad was not aimed specifically at silence in the face of anti-family trends, but of the general unwillingness of professional conservatives to take controversial stands. I should say that one luminous exception to this is Ryan T. Anderson at the Heritage Foundation, who does fantastic and courageous work on sex, gender, the family, and religious liberty.

UPDATE.3: Leszek Kolakowski, in his essay “Totalitarianism and the Virtue of the Lie,” writes of “the great ambition of totalitarianism — the total possession and control of human memory.” It is unattainable, he says, because “the power of words over reality cannot be unlimited since, fortunately, reality imposes its own unalterable conditions.” But “it can achieve its goals only if it succeeds in eliminating the resistance of both natural and mental reality, in other words, in cancelling reality altogether.”

That man had a baby is a phrase that attempt to cancel natural and mental reality. It will work for a while, but not forever, because 2 + 2 does not equal 5.