Never being alone with a man you're not married to, no sex before marriage, and seizing infants at birth from women deemed to breach these standards might sound like a particularly dystopian episode of The Handmaid's Tale, but alas, it is not - or at least, it's not just that: rather, these are the latest rousing battle cries of fulminating feminist - and prominent ARC spokeswoman - Louise Perry (last seen on these pages demanding the return of the death penalty).

I have written about Ms. Perry at length before, the novice author who managed to become an international best-seller, a frequent guest on top talk shows, and a regular newspaper columnist, all by the age of 30.

These facts, along with her role in ARC, suggest that Perry is a key change agent in the rapidly escalating cultural wars, tasked with accelerating the social pendulum shift from hard left to far right: from peak liberalism to arch conservatism.

Also instrumental in engineering this change are the 'Bonnie Blue' and 'Lily Phillips' characters (high-profile online pornographers, who compete with one another to see who can sleep with the most men in a day), both deftly designed to elicit maximum revulsion in audiences, who will, therefore, inevitably sympathise with Louise Perry's latest polemic for The Daily Mail that:

"Social services MUST intervene - the thought of Bonnie Blue and Lily Phillips becoming mothers is too upsetting for words."

Responding to the news that both these characters were allegedly pregnant - news since revealed as fake - Louise Perry's article is part of an agenda to ignite a furious national conversation regarding the required morality standards of potential mothers.

We may find it easy to agree with Perry that women who engage in activities as squalid and degenerate as Blue's and Phillips' are unfit mothers, and social services would be right to intervene.

Yet what precedent would we be setting if children were seized at birth from women solely because these women are judged to have slept with too many men?

After all, there is no evidence that either Blue or Phillips would mistreat a child, or be incapable of providing an adequate standard of living (on the contrary: these self-made millionaires would be able to provide their children with every material advantage).

And being very promiscuous, or creating pornography - deeply distasteful and downright dangerous as these things may certainly be - isn't illegal.

Therefore, in a liberal democracy, surely women are free to decide how they will conduct their personal lives, without incurring such severe penalties as having subsequent children removed from them?

I think the answer that Louise Perry would give to that question, along with increasingly large swathes of the population, is, no, they should not be free to do this. The potential consequences for children when raised in such chaotically non-traditional environments are too severe.

After all, look at all the ever-escalating "baby mama drama" surrounding prolific procreator, Elon Musk. Currently embroiled in some very public spats with two of his five known baby mamas - Claire "Grimes" Boucher and Ashley St. Clair - there is precious little public sympathy for these women, seen variously as gold diggers, attention seekers, and entrapment artists.

While some opprobrium may be directed at the men involved in these situations - certainly the faceless fornicators involved with Blue and Phillips have hardly covered themselves in glory - the most vicious and condemnatory public rhetoric regards the behaviour of the women, and this takes us back to cultural phenomenon and probable predictive programming vehicle, The Handmaid's Tale.

Viewers of the hugely popular Hulu series may recall that, once the Republic of Gilead takes power, women deemed 'immoral' by the regime have their children seized from them. This includes protagonist, June, who has her daughter Hannah removed from her care due to the fact that Hannah's father, Luke, was already married when June first became involved with him (he subsequently left his wife to marry June).

Equally, handmaid Janine loses custody of her son, Caleb, because she was raising him as a single mother.

In short, the women of Gilead were only permitted to keep and raise their own children if they met with a particular standard of morality - a standard eerily similar to the one currently being proposed by Louise Perry as a necessary precondition for motherhood: traditional monogamous marriage involving those with no history or fornication (sex before marriage) or adultery (sex outside of marriage).

If that standard was to be applied today to all the nation's parents as a condition of their retaining custody of their children, how many do you think would qualify?

That is why we must be on high alert when high-profile change agents like Louise Perry write articles declaring promiscuous women should lose custody of their children.

Because, how do you define "promiscuous"?

In many regimes historically, and around the world currently, women who have slept with more than one man - their husband - are considered irredeemable whores.

In others, so much as shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex is considered a form of adultery.

We may be temped to dismiss these examples as anachronistic, non-representative extremes: to object that modern, educated women like Louise Perry are not calling for anything so draconian simply by expressing sensible reservations about the wisdom of online pornographers becoming parents...

But please note that, as well as objecting to the behaviour of various OnlyFans "stars", Louise Perry also believes that women should never be alone with any man they are not married to, and that they should not socialise in mixed-sex groups: an extremely regressive philosophy more typical of Muslim caliphates (and Gilead Republics) than anything one might find in a liberal democracy.

So, Louise Perry is not a sensible moderate, merely objecting to the degenerate extremes surrounding hookup culture and online porn, but rather, she is - increasingly explicitly - seeking a return to nothing less than sex-segregated arch-conservatism, where harsh morality is strictly imposed and the state can forcibly remove children from the "immoral".

While "immoral" may initially be defined by shocking extremes as typified by publicity-hungry porn stars, desperate to stir up any controversy for clicks, the definition would soon expand, and could plausibly come to encompass any women who have children outside of very traditional arrangements. Single mothers, for instance, or women who are divorced.

It would be naïve to imagine "that couldn't happen here", because it has, and relatively recently, too: between 1949 and 1976, in England and Wales an estimated 185,000 children were taken from unmarried mothers and adopted. Women and girls who became pregnant outside of marriage during these decades were seen as having shamed themselves and their families. Babies were taken from their mothers who did not want to let them go.

Was taking babies from these unwed mothers in the '50s, '60s and '70s, really so different to taking them from the Bonnie Blues and Lily Phillips of the world today?

Both sets of women are judged by the standards of the time to be immoral and therefore unfit to raise children. Not because there is any evidence they would abuse or neglect their children: but solely because of their sexual behaviour.

Fortunately, at the time of writing, neither Bonnie Blue nor Lily Phillips are actually pregnant, so the speculation as to what should happen if they ever are, for the time being, remains entirely theoretical.

Nevertheless, their high-profile "publicity stunts" feigning pregnancy have set the stage for a very sinister conversation to begin gaining traction:

What morality standards should the state enforce where it comes to allowing parents to retain custody of children?

Are the current standards strict enough?

What restrictions should be placed on people's personal lives and what penalties should they face if they break them?

I believe that the Blue and Phillips' characters have been introduced into the narrative with the sole aim of provoking these kind of conversations. To rile people up into a state of such utter revulsion that they start demanding the state take action to curtail certain forms of personal behaviour - including and especially in parents and potential parents.

And it's action that wouldn't stop with banning online pornography and sites like OnlyFans (action which many would support).

As with any desired massive social change, the social engineers will first introduce it as a philanthropic necessity to deal only with outliers and extremes, not to be applied to everyday people.

Just like they did with abortion.

Just like they're doing with assisted dying.

We'll be told "this legislation is only to be used in rare and extreme cases".

Yet the slippery slope is very real and we have seen that time and again throughout history.

Abortion quickly went from "last ditch safety net for vulnerable women in desperate circumstances" to one in five pregnancies ending in termination.

Assisted dying, in every country that offers it, rapidly escalates from "only available to terminally ill adults in severe pain" to "cure for all social ills including unemployment, disability, and depression".

So to take babies from OnlyFans creators because these women are deemed "too immoral" to raise them would quickly spiral to babies being removed from every woman who doesn't meet a potentially Gileadesque standard of personal behaviour. Certainly in such a climate (and as Louise Perry strongly hints) being unmarried would make you an unfit parent - and more than half of all babies born in the UK currently are born to unmarried parents.

Indeed, a conspiracy theorist might suggest that this enormous social change, which happened extraordinarily quickly - in 1950, just 5% of births were outside marriage - was engineered on purpose, so it could subsequently be used against the population.

Governments have imposed these kind of morality standards on reproduction in the recent past and, as such, they could very well do it again, especially in the context that we are in a fertility crisis and increasingly large numbers of couples can't conceive. Therefore, babies will become an increasingly precious commodity and may become seen as a state resource, to be seized at birth and allocated only to the most "deserving". Just as we see in the Republic of Gilead - and we also see something very similar in the increasing trend for wealthy couples to use surrogates.

So this is not a debate about whether it's better for children to be raised in stable two-parent families where neither parent is an online pornographer. Obviously that is better. It's about what the state should be able to enforce, and whether it should have the power to remove children from parents whose family arrangements or past histories don't meet with particular standards of traditional morality.

That's what the debate really is, and that's why it's critically important that we always step back and think strategically before engaging in whatever the latest media feeding frenzy is.

We're currently being strongly encouraged to vilify and condemn Bonnie Blue, Lily Phillips, Ashley St. Clair et al... but why?

Why does the vilification of non-traditional young mothers and potential mothers serve the agenda?

Why does a self-proclaimed "feminist" like Louise Perry want to see children snatched at birth from women who don't obey traditional standards of morality... an idea which is about as un-feminist as it gets?

In short, where is this all going?

In my opinion, it's part of a long-game plan to destroy real conservatism and authentic religion (especially Christianity) permanently. Many parts of the world, especially the UK and USA, are currently engaged in a contrived social shift which will appear to be "a return to traditional, religious values", but will actually push this notion to ludicrous and very painful extremes - just as is depicted in The Handmaid's Tale - to engender a pushback that will eventually lead to the abolition of major religions and social conservatism.

Louise Perry makes sure to tell us she thinks we need a return to "Christian ethics".

Well, if "Christian ethics" come to be seen as the cause of snatching babies from their mothers on the most flimsy of pretexts (this woman had a boyfriend before she was married! This one was alone in a lift for three minutes with a member of the opposite sex!) the population will come to completely reject them.

The ultimate endgame for the overlords is engineering a communist dystopia where there is no such thing as family, marriage, religion, nationality, or culture (see the NWO blueprint, John Lennon's 'Imagine': no possessions, no countries, no religions).

But in order to get there, they've got to manufacture consent in the population by making the alternative - tradition, religion, conservatism - look abhorrent.

The way to do that is to push these things to grotesque extremes that cause such pain and discord in the population, that they revolt and demand conservatism and religion are scrapped for good.

There is no chance we will have a revival of genuine traditionalism as used to exist in the West, as people would be too likely to find that a preferable alternative to modern, increasingly insane liberalism.

So instead, we will have a monstrous exaggeration and grim parody of it: "conservatism" as imagined by highly strategic, subversive communists who want to invoke nothing but complete disgust for it.

Conservatism that snatches babies and destroys families.

Conservatism that condemns as whores women who so much as speak to men they aren't married to.

Conservatism that introduces the death penalty, fire and brimstone, and fear at every corner!

Just like in The Handmaid's Tale (which is liberal agitprop asserting to "prove" what would happen to cultures if traditional religious conservatives ever again came to power).

Bear in mind that the allegedly conservative, religious champion, Louise Perry, attended SOAS, University of London, an institution renowned for its radical socialist politics, and which also possesses a Revolutionary Communist Society.

While Perry herself claims that it was the intense left-wingery of SOAS that highlighted to her the philosophy's flaws - and that is certainly possible - we must also consider the distinct possibility that this hard left, communist institution simply trained up a hard left, communist infiltrator - tasked with posing as a traditional, religious woman to ultimately turn the culture against such an archetype, as communist revolutionaries have always sought to do.

After all, Louise Perry hardly practises what she preaches: as a jet-setting career woman who employs a nanny for her children, she far from embodies the traditional stay-at-home feminine ideal that she purports to champion for other women.

And although it's possible that the intense left-wing atmosphere of the university she attended caused her to react by becoming more conservative, that's not the general trajectory young people, especially young women, follow. If they entered a university with liberal, left-wing sentiments (as Perry confirms she did, believing that "porn is great, BDSM is fun, sex work is work"), these will typically only become more amplified throughout their studies (especially if their studies involve 'Women's Studies', as Perry's did).

Any right-wing conversion - if it happens at all - would typically happen later in life, and very rarely substantially before the age of 30 (by which time Perry had written an entire hefty tome on the failings of liberalism).

Is it possible Perry is simply unusual in bucking this trend?

Sure, it's possible. (She claims to have worked in a rape crisis centre immediately after university which was the main catalyst for her changing her views.)

But I suspect there's something far more strategic at play.

Because there always is where prominent change agents and mammoth social engineering campaigns are concerned.

Note that Louise Perry is published by Polity Press, the same outfit that publishes prominent social subversion agent, Theodore Adorno. Described as "one of the 20th century's most important Marxist intellectuals", Adorno was a key founder of the notorious Frankfurt School, and is also widely rumoured to have written the lyrics for the songs of change agents in chief, The Beatles.

Polity is also the publisher of Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek, who - not content with his reputation as a radical leftist - insists on being referred to as "a communist"

Somehow, such a publisher doesn't seem a natural fit for an arch-conservative, traditional religious Christian such as Louise Perry purports to be, does it?

Or - having read the content of this article - does it..?

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (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 this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.