MAOIST UNISEX CLOTHING ENFORCED IN U.K. The Cultural Revolution comes to Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex. September 9, 2019 Jamie Glazov Excerpt: The new policy at Priory School is, naturally, being camouflaged with the excuse that the objective is to make transgender students feel more comfortable -- and to also have an environment more conducive to “learning and teaching.” But it's obvious what's really going on: the Left is waging its traditional war on gender differences, which it believes are socially constructed by the evil white-supremacist capitalist power structures. [. . .] The central reality to gauge here is that desexualized dress satisfies in leftists their morbid pining for enforced sameness. It is crucial, in their world, to erase physical and emotional differences and attractions between people. In the utopian endgame, humans must all be replicas of each other and be completely devoted to the state -- and to its all-knowing administering of 'equality' and 'social justice'. [. . .] The yearning for totalitarian puritanism that was witnessed among leftists in Maoist China does not mean, of course, that leftists are non-sexual. To the contrary, many of them are highly sexually promiscuous and also passionately active in promoting promiscuity. The issue here is what cause is being served. Women’s “sexual self-determination” is, for instance, adamantly supported by leftists if it enables their war against their own host democratic-capitalist societies -- and if it can hurt the Judeo-Christian tradition. But if a totalitarian adversarial society is stifling women’s rights in this context, then leftists vehemently support that oppression, since they typically worship the particular tyranny in question and gleefully welcome the threat it poses to their own host society -- which they hate and want to destroy. Maoist Unisex Clothing Enforced in U.K. _________ Arguably, the most interesting observation made by the author of this piece is the very same I've made myself many times. We're not the only to make it, of course, nor were Orwell and Huxley; at least, they weren't the only ones to immediately recognize why the political left reduces human sexuality, for example, to its mechanics. But those novelists did give us vivid accounts of why leftists encourage sexual promiscuity sans spiritual love, fidelity, marital and familial devotion, oneness with God . . . or strive to erase the gender differences of mutual completion, purpose, that exquisite sense of music, passion, romance, poetry. Everything must be reduced to the drab, the mundane, the mediocre, the routine . . . the tattooed, blue- and green-haired "diversity" of ideological sameness. The Collective! The State! The sweet, nurturing kindness and devotion of femininity, the latent brutality of masculinity, albeit, harnessed to fiercely protect and gently cherish. Anathema!