Project 2029 is the UK version of the Project 2025 playbook currently followed by Trump in the United States. It’s funded by various wealthy parties and spearheaded by Evangelical Christians. Its architects are CFABB (formerly Resolute 1850), who have close ties to the ADF (and here), and will very likely be used by Reform if they come to power. Some weeks ago Baroness Falkner of ex EHRC fame, along with some other notable people, took to the stage and touched on all the points they’ll need to repeat to normalise what they intend to do.

Their page makes a truth claim about nefarious stakeholders and quangos influencing the UK, for which they do not provide sources nor specify names. And based on that unsubstantiated claim, among others, they go on to ask big questions surrounding governance of the UK. It makes sense to be wary of those who make a truth claim, fail to provide sufficient evidentiary warrant, and then ask numerous questions not of their own truth claim, but instead of what should be done because of it. And that wariness is perhaps most appropriate when it’s done on a countrywide scale.

Listen carefully as they mention repealing the Human Rights Act and Equalities Act, which would allow them to more easily increase worker productivity for their financial gain, increase their power by removing everyone’s protections, and reinforce the patriarchy. Also notice they mention how the decriminalisation of abortion was not sufficiently debated in parliament, and hold that up as an example of a parliament no longer fit for purpose. What they have implied, is that abortion requires further consideration, which is an iceberg that Evangelical Christians want to melt in the UK. Unlike the States, this will probably be framed more on humanitarian than religious grounds, although among certain demographics, Christianity may be rising in the UK, and as trans people found out recently, those with influence can quickly polarise views.

As we know, the definition of man and woman has been ruled biological for purposes of equalities law, but what I’d highlight about the ruling, is that strict roles and gender stereotypes, womanhood defined by her body, especially that of a birthing vessel, and deconstruction of the rainbow, are all Evangelical Christian positions shared by those at the ADF. Considering where the UK was a decade ago, the shift toward legal and social alignment with Evangelical Christianity hasn’t been unsubstantial.

Division as a Mechanism

Many in society feel that an increase in equality over recent decades has yielded negative repercussions for their demographic. Through a certain lens, their assessment isn’t wholly wrong, although there is important nuance to be had.

Men and boys do what the patriarchy asks of them, but increasingly often and especially for those who are younger, this results in not only unemployment, but lack of partner appeal, largely to women who can now live on their own, and dislike some of the behaviours they’ve learnt. From their perspective, the problem isn’t patriarchy instilling those behaviours, nor wealth inequality, it’s immigration and other people gaining rights; largely women and LGBT+ people. They feel adrift, left behind, and lonely, but due to the bastardisation of stoicism by the patriarchy, they likely don’t know how to express themselves in a healthy way. Their suffering mostly goes unnoticed, until they find the red or black pill communities of the Manosphere, where their pain is acknowledged and exploited.

Immigration is an issue for plenty of demographics, though the nuance perhaps missed, is that of wealth inequality, and specifically chronic underinvestment of the services some claim immigrants have no right to stretch further. The same applies to housing, where hereditary land ownership seldom comes up. Nor religion as a concept, and its contribution to the issue of integration, as it vastly increases the ways that two people can be different, and compounds this by heavily biasing each individual to feel strongly about views and practices that seem diametrically opposed.

Women and girls, who suffer misogyny and the consequences of patriarchy from an early age, now also have to fear immigrants and trans people. Who they are told at least in the latter case, are pretending to be what they claim, disproportionately predatory, and now demanding to be in their safe spaces. From their perspective, they need look no further than how reactive trans people can be when asked their pronouns, or how unobliging they are when asked not use ‘cis’. If they aren’t respected in a conversation, how are they to believe they’ll be respected elsewhere. What’s lost in translation is why trans people are often so reactive, or lack of incident whilst using those spaces for decades, and during all of this, each side fails to notice the other side’s similarities, up to and including their fears. Though more importantly, what we all lose sight of, are the threats posed by misogyny, religious actors or the patriarchy itself. Instead, misinformation and statistical security theatre overshadows addressing rates of conviction, or the documented prevalence of all types of violence.

Fabricating a zero-sum game

It’s easy to see how division is sown, and how each demographic is misdirected to blame the other. In the red pill community of the Manosphere, misogyny and patriarchy are reinforced; a man is valued by wealth and his physical and sexual prowess. Immigration needs controlling, but the nuance of hereditary land ownership is often lost along the way, as is compassion given our conduct abroad, along with how the concept of religion itself impacts integration. Due to rhetoric about trans people, both women and men alike have participated in furthering a stereotype of what it means to be them, and of an identity chiefly predicated on reproduction. Accusations of negative attitudes toward the rainbow may now be deemed discrimination by stereotype, and part of that rainbow now faces far less social inclusion.

As you can see, in each demographic the focus is not on improving wealth inequality or addressing the impact of patriarchy, misogyny, misandry or religion. The blame is instead placed on each other, whilst those doing their best to keep you distracted, try their hardest to convince you that equality is a zero-sum game.

None of this even sounds easy

Repairing division by engaging constructively with each other helps to solidify everyone’s rights. But when viewpoints differ to your own, it’s easy to feel disbelief, misunderstood, dismayed, invalidated or frustrated, and because of this, wrap pain in anger and direct it as hatred toward someone else. However, when doing so, I think you have lost perhaps one of the best parts of what it is to be human; the opportunity to meet someone with empathy, curiosity, kindness and warmth.

I like to believe the majority tend to hold people accountable only when they had control over their actions, and that distinction is important because it has implications for empathy. I think it’s crucial that we try not to lose sight of that which was not chosen; because within those confines, empathy can reign. And the inclination to wrap pain up in anger is one such an example; specifically that of being subjected to patriarchy’s corruption of stoicism, and the notion that successfully suppressing one’s emotions is somehow a form of strength. The person that hurt you likely didn’t choose that to happen to them either, nor the resulting propensity of substituting empathy for hatred. It appears that people don’t consciously choose their faith, nor their brain, body, birthplace, or their job status sometimes either. They likely didn’t choose the inequality that oppresses most in society, or how it does so in differing ways, nor did they design the seemingly arbitrary criteria by which people are set against each other.

When both the absence of choice and the result of that absence is more fully recognised, both a new arrival to our country, and someone holding strong views on immigration might engage using an empathetic and logical foundation of similarity and understanding. This makes each of them more able to treat their own thoughts and feelings less like implicit truth, and more as potentially rational and proportional data points, and to view any that fall short of that inspection, not as personal failure, but as an opportunity for growth instead. While irrational and disproportionate thoughts and feelings make everyone beautifully human, the goal is to not act on them before they’re reasonably interrogated, and striving to achieve that goal, can make both society and themselves a great deal more beautiful.

I know none of this even sounds easy, but I urge you to persevere all the same; because if society continues to be divided, the people least affected by its fallout, are the largely invisible architects that originally sowed our division. And what I imagine they’d never tell you about equality, is that not only does everyone deserve it, but if we’re more united as a society we can also achieve it; because equality is far from a zero-sum game.