Last night, after reading authors like Michel Foucault, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, Monique Wittig, and Anne Fausto-Sterling, I tore up my identity card. I am tired of being locked into an identitarian, dichotomous, and infringed normative framework. Something has stirred inside me. Looking in the mirror, I understood: I am the 47th president of the United States. I demand to be treated as such, to be obeyed as such, and that the man who occupies the White House, by virtue of obsolete and outdated materialistic realism, leave the room so as not to restrict my freedom of identity.
If the 18th century was the century of reason (and of the monsters of reason), there is a certain consensus that the 21st century is the century of emotions. In a certain way, it represents an overcoming and a consequence of postmodernism, an era marked by relativism, after “the death of God” sentenced by Nietzsche only a few years before God sentenced the death of Nietzsche.
The century of emotion comes at a relativistic time in which, theoretically, there is no room for absolute truths; but in practice, as we shall see, there is more room than ever, as long as they are framed within the pensée unique, a concept almost surpassed by the woke universe these days.
“Nonsense has taken up residence in the heart of public debate and also in the academy,” Scruton wrote, “Nonsense confiscates meaning. It thereby puts truth and falsehood, reason and unreason, light and darkness on an equal footing. It is a blow cast in defence of intellectual freedom, as the optimists construct it, namely the freedom to believe anything at all, provided you feel better for it.”
The antidote to our time’s confusion is intellectual and lived in Rome until his death in 2023. Benedict XVI was a blessing, one of the most important intellectuals in Europe. It was he who warned of the dangerous path we were treading: “A dictatorship of relativism is taking shape, which does not recognize anything as definitive and which leaves as its ultimate measure only the self and its desires. And the ultimate expression of freedom is no longer conferred by human dignity, the whole heritage of Christian humanism, but by the force of emotions and personal longings.”
Egalitarianism has defeated meritocracy because no reasoning, not even the efforts of others or competition, can overcome the personal emotion of those who wish to achieve something. Of course, when taken to sex, this means that no one can restrict you in your rights — right? — to be whatever you want to be: male, female, or anything fluid and oscillating that moves in between and is ambiguous enough to be in an MTV video clip.
My point is that, if there is a trans right, the right to mutilate oneself to change one’s sex, nothing can prevent the existence, under the same arguments, of a right to transition in any sphere other than the sexual one. Every time I think about it, I see myself closer to my dream, of going out drinking in Washington aboard Cadillac One.
Not so long ago, human beings, at birth, used to be either male or female. Some on the left are convinced that this was a conservative project. The truth is that unless God is right-wing, the idea predates Reagan by a few million years and was intended to ensure the survival of the species within a certain order; I don’t think I need to tell you what they used to say in 20th-century schools about daddy putting a little seed in mommy. Unfortunately, there is no longer much to explain to children about the practice of sex. Any preteen TikToker could give you a masterclass on the 1,001 ways to make your own baby at home with the help of your partner.
But let’s look at the origin of sexual confusion. To endorse the dominant queer theory, the one that has brought about trans laws, the infamous Judith Butler embraced Foucault, but also the speech act theory of John Austin, a language philosopher who never imagined that he would be posthumously cited in this postmodern gender war. Austin said that, although there are utterances that describe things, there are others that have the function of doing things; depending on the context, they can modify emotions, status, or even identities. Austin’s example is poignant: the wedding “I do.” Butler loves the example, even though she doesn’t like weddings. Everything about this woman is confusing.
Butler used this theory to develop her gender performativity: by describing ourselves as male or female even before we are born, we are not stating a fact but realizing ourselves. I wonder if she herself could become Maria Sharapova through performativity, i.e., not by not ascertaining but by realizing. Had she succeeded, her theory would be more convincing, and I would want to marry her.
When Anne Fausto-Sterling wrote Five Sexes in the ’90s, I guess she was inspired by Beverly Hills, 90210, where all the main characters seemed to embody each and every one of them at the same time. The author only intended to provoke a little with her article, in fact she received criticism from trans activists who had not understood the author’s irony, but the truth is that years later Butler’s gender liquidity left Fausto-Sterling’s Five Sexes in an almost paleoconservative approach. According to the philosopher, perfomativity has to do “with the repetition of oppressive gender norms”; I suspect this is a covert criticism of bras.
At the origin of gender polemics, something sad happened that should have prevented us from continuing to insist along this failed path. Dr. John Money wanted to back up his ideas, which gave rise to the current gender ideology, with facts. Thus, he experimented with a boy whose penis had been amputated due to an infection, and agreed with his parents to educate him as a girl — hiding the fact that he had been born a boy — in order to demonstrate that gender is simply a cultural assignment. The experiment failed: young David Reimer began to live as a man at the age of 15 and ended his days by committing suicide in a painful drift of economic, personal, and depressive ruin brought on by the childhood traumas caused by the experiment. Reimer’s father, plunged into alcoholism by remorse for the bad decisions made regarding his son, also took his own life. Everyone would conclude that Money was wrong. Everyone but the Left.
Today, surgical sex reassignments are promoted by public administrations. These days, biology has nothing to say. Today, the only thing that counts is what you want to be. Last October, Butler visited Spain to give a conference in Madrid. There she broke a lance in favor of “trans and queer people who take to the streets to demand the right to appear without discrimination and violence” and added: “The future of democracy depends on the materialization of the rights of people who do not have them.” This is my point. The collective of those of us who identify as presidents of the government is so discriminated against that it doesn’t even have a name: I’m not trans, I’m not queer, I’m the freaking POTUS. With Butler, I too believe that the future of democracy depends on the materialization of the rights of people who want to enjoy their POTUS status and cannot.
You may think I’ve gone crazy, but I’m really just being consistent with all previous progressive sociological theory. Butler, with Foucault, redrew gender with a view that has been called poststructuralist and postmodern, where biological sex is a social and cultural construct. As for biology and science, once the banner of all progressives to silence theologians, they are nothing more than a set of norms that seek to validate the unreality of the sexual dichotomy between male and female.
“The recognition that the norms regulating femininity and masculinity have changed over time has enabled sociologists to track their evolution and demonstrate that gender behavior is not solely a product of biology,” says Anthony Giddens in one of the world’s most famous sociology textbooks. The amazing thing about the conclusion is that you could swap “femininity and masculinity” for almost anything: “beauty and ugliness,” “wealth and poverty,” “Pepsi and Coca-Cola,” or even “humanity and animality.” If we listen to Giddens, tomorrow we will have to recognize the handful of lunatics who, in different corners of the world, perceive themselves as dogs or cats. Perhaps it is time to ask ourselves seriously whether the government should provide them with free fodder.
In short, based on the new performative reality, on the thesis that the inner identity is different from the outer identity construction (conditioned by culture), no one could prevent me from feeling like POTUS, and later, following the same path as gender laws, from demanding my rights. In fact, it is not only that no one could prevent me from being POTUS, but also that no one could prevent me from being a dog, or even a beer can.
I regret to deny that the idea of a Western consensus on transsexualism is born out of politicians’ concern for our sex lives. The only sexual practice that the government really advocates is sodomy, through the IRS. When politicians do something, you always have to wonder who or what it benefits. There, you can discover that the two great banners of the globalist Left, climate and sexual diversity, are intimately related, and it doesn’t seem to be by chance. Is it a war against human beings? If it is not, it looks a lot like it.
An explosive book has just come out in Spain by an author who is always controversial, due to the number of political scandals she has uncovered in her investigations of recent history, Pilar Urbano. The writer has immersed herself in the coup d’état with which Catalonia’s leaders tried to separate Catalonia from Spain in 2017. Urbano believes that tycoon George Soros financed and backed that coup.
The author delves into other dark areas surrounding Soros, whose name always appears in Europe to support separatism, LGBT movements, abortion, and Muslim immigration to Christian Europe. In Urbano’s opinion, it all responds to the same thing: Soros does not do anything different from Gates, promoting a new Malthusianism that, either through climate apocalypse or killing the birth rate, manages to drastically reduce the population. Obviously, he makes money on all that. If it were only a long-term project, the first one who would not see the results is Soros himself, unless he goes into cryogenic storage like Walt Disney and his defrosting inside a microwave in the year 2070 goes well.
As for the promotion of immigration and separatism within Europe, Soros seeks to denaturalize nations, eliminate sovereignty, and destroy culture and tradition, which are precisely the best foundations on which to build prosperous nations, avoid relativist propaganda, and bet on traditional family models.
Often, it is enough to pronounce Soros’ name for someone to brand you as a conspiracist and discredit all of your previous paragraphs. I’ll take one for the team this time. The truth is that I have taken the trouble to read many of the tycoon’s latest publications, and I have closely followed the activities promoted by his Open Society. Now Urbano provides evidence to argue that Soros financed the coup d’état in Catalonia with the unequivocal aim of destroying the unity of Spain, which at the time was one of the few conservative strongholds in Europe. With this, I want to say to progressives that I am not the least bit worried about seeming like a conspiracy theorist on this one.
Otherwise, right now the only thing that really discourages me is that, against all odds, Soros is not going to support my identity transition from ruined writer to president of the United States. Much remains to be done.