I had a little chuckle to myself when I learned recently that one of my childhood friends had become a feminist Marxist academic. I wasn't chuckling at her expense (I've met a few feminist Marxists before and I've learned that's not a good idea), but because this was really such a predictable outcome given her background.

I have a very vivid memory, from when we were both six, of her proudly displaying to me her new toy, a fabulous stuffed monkey with velcro feet that you could wrap around your waist.

"He's called Sibling," she told me solemnly. "Because it's very important we give our toys gender-neutral names."

She may not have used the actual phrase "gender-neutral", but that was the general thrust of her pronouncement, and why the monkey had been so-christened (or rather, named in a non-religiously-denominated fashion).

My friend, Sarah (not her real name, but I can at least mercifully report she did have one, and wasn't called Unicorn Rainbow Chickpea Quiche or some such), was the child of two very socialist, feminist parents - even to the extent that her father had cared for her when she was a baby, whilst her mother worked - and, as such, she was raised to be staunchly left-wing.

Conversely, my other close childhood friend, Owen - who I had known since the age of two when we attended the local playgroup together - had far more traditional, conservative parents. His mother stayed at home with the children, whilst his father was a father of the old-school variety: one who found children rather annoying, and much preferred to be shut away in his study with his books.

Owen's toys all had strictly gendered names.

The interesting thing about this scenario, however, is that Sarah's parents and Owen's parents were very good friends. They were virtually neighbours on the small university campus where we lived (Sarah and Owen's fathers taught at the university, Keele, as did mine), and developed a rapport which far extended past their children's acquaintance, not infrequently socialising with one another and even spending Christmases together. They still do now.

Needless to say, the friendship has not been without its obstacles, and I still remember the apocalyptic levels of incandescence demonstrated by Sarah's father when he discovered Owen's parents were planning on sending him to private school. Meanwhile, I imagine that Owen's parents vociferously disapproved of Sarah and her sister being permitted to scamper around the campus in bare feet (although they were a little more muted in making their opinions quite as obvious as Sarah's father did).

Interestingly enough, and in a case of art reflecting (though rather exaggerating) life, at around the same time, a TV series was being filmed on the university campus, the BBC's surreal comedy 'A Very Peculiar Practice'.

I was extremely young at the time and have absolutely no memory of this (although one of my then-teenaged uncles recalls seeing the series' signature rubbish-rummaging nuns - I told you it was surreal - sauntering around campus), and actually had never even heard of it until quite recently, when - delighted to learn that my otherwise entirely obscure hometown had been immortalised on film - I ordered the DVD.

I can thoroughly recommend the series (you can watch it for free at Dailymotion), so I don't want to give away too many spoilers, but the general premise is, young and idealistic doctor, Stephen Daker, gets a new job at a university medical centre, where he encounters quite an eclectic and eccentric array of characters - and not his patients so much as his colleagues.

His boss, and head of the medical centre, is Scots alcoholic, Jock McCannon, who never thinks anyone is really ill (based on the real head of the medical centre at the time, apparently, who, upon encountering a student who was constantly coughing and rapidly losing weight, dismissed them with an order to stop partying so much. It turned out they had tuberculosis).

Stephen's two contemporaries are arch-feminist, Dr. Rose Marie (she doesn't have a surname as they are too significant of patriarchal oppression), and ultra-capitalist, Dr. Bob Buzzard (who despises the 'common' contraction of his first name and is constantly imploring everyone to call him Robert).

Much mirth is derived from observing the interactions between the extremely left-wing Rose, the extremely right-wing Bob, and the agonies of Stephen, sort of caught in the middle.

Obviously, Rose and Bob are caricatures, spoofed and exaggerated for comic effect, but as real life on that university campus at the time attested, not that far from the truth, either. There were strong and differing political views and social opinions amongst groups: amongst colleagues, amongst families, and amongst friends.

But the crucial thing is, these differing views didn't automatically cause groups to fracture and fall apart. They didn't develop into bitterly opposed warring factions of "us" and "them". People could possess and express their own views, hear and allow the views of others, and all remain on cordial terms at the end of it.

In other words, differences were allowed. They were expected. When people went out into the world - starting new jobs, meeting new people - they didn't expect to encounter mirror images of themselves, parroting back to them exactly their own stances and opinions.

It seems that these days, that is what is expected.

That university campus I grew up on - a microcosm reflecting the trends of wider society - has completely transformed since then, and not for the better. Put it this way: the Students' Union has not only installed "gender-neutral" toilets, but the building's central staircase is now permanently emblazoned with an enormous transgender flag.

This would never have happened in the 1980s or 1990s, it would have been unthinkable. Not because left-wing sympathies for gender-neutrality didn't exist - they certainly did, as my friend's toy monkey 'Sibling' attested - but because the left-wing did not feel they had the right to unilaterally impose their beliefs on everyone else, blithely assuming everyone else shared them.

There would have been mutiny if such a brazen political statement had been stamped across the Students' Union then, and not just from the right-leaning students, but from left-wingers as well, who would have felt it's no more acceptable to brand the Students' Union (which exists to represent all students) with such extremist political ideology as a transgender flag, as it is to daub it with a Nazi flag.

Now, however, there have been no such objections.

Militant left-wing factions have glibly assumed everyone shares their beliefs... and, with only a few limited exceptions, they are right.

The diversity and plurality of thought, opinion, and even character, has gone.

You would not find a family like my friend Owen's living and thriving on that campus now. They'd be driven out by a rainbow pitchfork waving mob.

You wouldn't get a "Bob Buzzard" or a "Jock McCannon", either. Too colourful, too original, too different.

And this is the central theme that I keep seeing again and again, in life and art alike:

Difference is being erased.

I spoke to my dad, who told me that, when he began his teaching career in 1974, the student body was an intriguing and assorted array of different and original characters. People were very distinct in their personalities, opinions, and even mannerisms.

But by the mid-nineties, he started to notice that the memorable "characters" - strong and distinct personalities, notably different from each other - were fading away, and everyone was becoming more and more alike.

By the time he retired from teaching in 2008, he said, almost everyone was exactly the same. They thought the same way, they spoke the same way, they even looked the same way. Walk around any university campus now, and listen in on some student conversations, and it's not hard to see what he means.

It's not just universities, though, of course - it's everywhere. What we learned so brutally clearly during the "Covid" chapter was that differences of opinion and perspective are not allowed. There was only one acceptable opinion (Covid is very real and very dangerous), one acceptable mode of behaviour (obey the government without question), and one acceptable resolution (vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate).

The Covid chapter woke so many people up because they were confronted with the acute shock of realising how authoritarian and closed-minded many around them had become. People who perhaps remembered a time when differences of opinion were actually permitted, expected that family, friends, and colleagues would be tolerant of the fact that they saw things differently, and it was a searing shock to learn otherwise.

The ruling classes couldn't have pulled off Covid in the twentieth century. There would have been too much rebellion and too many competing views and opinions, courtesy of the fact there were so many strong and distinct characters with minds of their own.

Therefore, the social orchestrators had to engage in an insidiously effective campaign, intensified over many decades, to strip away differences between people, in order to make them more and more the same, and therefore, more and more compliant.

It is a theme I have visited at this site on a number of occasions, the agenda to strip away differences from people, under the guise of safety: to push the idea that differences between people are too dangerous, and cause all the conflict and bloodshed in the world (see NWO blueprint, John Lennon's 'Imagine').

So "gender-neutrality" is foisted on us, ostensibly in a bid to end sexism (and offshoot "oppression" related to biological sex, such as homophobia and transphobia). That is to say, you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their gender, or gender-based sexuality, if there is no such thing as gender.

The social controllers intend to extend this same "logic" to nationality, race, religion, and every other pillar of human identity, i.e., you can't have racism without race; you can't have immigration issues without countries to immigrate to; you can't have religious wars without religion, and so on.

They are systematically erasing all these differences under the guise of "safety" (and they've already been very successful at erasing religious identities in this country), but in reality, the reason for this campaign is obviously not to make people "safer" (just as the Covid restrictions weren't) - but to make them more compliant and easier to control.

The more similar everyone is, the more predictable and formulaic: therefore, the far easier for their overlords to manage.

The clever thing about this campaign to impose complete uniformity across all aspects of society is that they disguise it by - in classic Orwellian doublespeak - calling it "diversity".

But the diversity they push is of course incredibly superficial and basically only boils down to skin colour and "gender identity".

So, if you have two people who think exactly the same way, have the same beliefs about everything, vote the same way, and even dress the same way, they are nevertheless "diverse" if one of them's black and one of them's trans.

Conversely, if you have two people who are completely ideologically different to one another, disagree on everything, and are politically poles apart, they are nevertheless uniform, staid, and indicative of institutionalised oppression if they're both "cis" and white.

"Diversity" has become nothing more than different coloured hats (don't knock hats though), with no emphasis on what's under the hat, as I learned rather bleakly when I attended a talk at the university campus I grew up on regarding the HPV vaccine.

I will quote from the letter of complaint I sent afterwards to the speaker (a psychologist, rather curiously and tellingly):

"As an academic psychologist, you have a responsibility to maintain professional standards, which include the ability to appropriately entertain and engage with ideas that don't match your own. Your tirade against "anti-vaxxers" was not only emotionally driven and unprofessional, it was extremely intolerant and discriminatory, and could have caused great trauma and offence to members of the audience. You do not know what their personal beliefs on vaccination are, or whether a close family member of theirs may have been injured or killed by a vaccine.

It is clear you are not well educated on the dangers of vaccines generally nor the HPV vaccine specifically (which you stated falsely has not caused any deaths), and that is your choice. But as an academic, you have a responsibility to encourage, support and respect debate, disagreement and diversity of ideas. Instead, I am of the view that your lecture was akin to indoctrination and "brainwashing", giving students none of the full facts, and aggressively attacking and mocking anyone who attempted to offer an alternative or fuller perspective.

I feel that your conduct was in breach of the university's anti-discrimination policy, whose first priority in a higher education setting should be protecting from discrimination those who have different ideas."

Alas, the university seems far more interested in protecting from discrimination men who wish to loiter in women's toilets (an expellable offence, back in the sane old days). There is no room for true diversity any more, and this theme is evident everywhere: it even manifests at the higher echelons of society, where people are physically morphing into each other.

Famous actresses. for example, used to look different to one another. But now they all have the same nose job, the same plumped up lips, the same frozen faces.

We must not let the ruling classes euphemistically 'botox' our differences out of us, chiselling away at our uniqueness until we are all completely expressionless, thoughtless, and faceless.

Be different (peculiar, even!).

The future of the human race may very well depend upon it...

Thanks for reading! This website is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.