If you reside, as I do, in the Anglosphere - the so-called 'Five Eyes' nations, which sounds very Handmaid's Tale - you've almost certainly, as I have, imbibed a lot of Hollywood programming. This likely includes 1998's Pleasantville.

Billed as a "fantasy-comedy", and featuring an array of top stars, Pleasantville, according to the Google overview, tells the story of "two modern-day siblings who get sucked into a black-and-white 1950s television sitcom town where change begins to bring vibrant colour and real emotion to the residents".

The film received gushing reviews across the fashionable press, and was declared The Guardian's film of the week in March 1999.

That alone is enough to cause us to be deeply suspicious of this piece of programming, which, far from being a harmless piece of fluffy "fantasy-comedy", was in fact - like all high-profile, star-studded offerings - deeply subversive propaganda.

The film tells the story of teenage twins, David and Jennifer, who get transported back in time to the eponymous Pleasantville, a fictional 1950s community devised by screenwriters, and David's favourite TV show. A testament to traditional values, stable homes, and general social innocence, Pleasantville becomes, once David and Jennifer are transported there, a real place, where the twins are re-imagined as the children of the show's central couple.

This suits nerdy David, who is unpopular at school and unhappy at home (the twins live with their single mother, following an acrimonious divorce), as he much prefers Pleasantville's gentle, uncomplicated way of life - but the new environment is despised by the cool, rebellions Jennifer.

Jennifer then essentially functions as a subversive communist agent, who seeks to disrupt and destroy the town's stability and innocence, by seducing the boys and teaching the town's womenfolk, including her "mother" (who claims complete inexperience in this area, despite having two children), about the joys of sex. When Jennifer's mother-figure looks shocked, and says, "your father would never do that", Jennifer instructs her instead in the art of "self-pleasuring".

Up until this point, the Pleasantville community and its inhabitants are depicted solely in black and white, but every time one of them engages in sexual activity outside of a marital relationship, they spontaneously burst into colour.

Naturally, nobody accidentally gets pregnant during any of this, because of sexual revolution magic, where sex doesn't ever lead to babies, unless both parties give their express and explicit permission. Pleasantville, like so much much of the televisual programming of the time, is at great pains to remind us that sex is solely about the fulfilment of adult desires, and certainly has nothing to do with consequence, commitment, or responsibility.

Throughout the film, those who remain in black and white - as a result of their continuing adherence to traditional values, and abstention from engaging in extra-marital affairs, reading explicit literature, or posing for nude paintings - are depicted as backwards and bigoted: nothing but oppressive relics who are standing in the way of true liberation and progress.

The film ends when Pleasantville's central couple have split up, the wife now instead having a fling with the town's resident nude painter.

The dissolution of the show's signature family is presented to the audience as a great triumph, as now, Pleasantville's children can - just like David and Jennifer - grow up in a wonderful, emancipated broken home, where their parents are happy because they have discovered sex (Pleasantville echoes the sentiments of the famous Philip Larkin poem, that sex wasn't invented until 1963).

David, having previously resented his parents for splitting up, realises that actually, it's fine, and stable family homes don't offer any advantages to children - on the contrary, they are backwards and oppressive. When David returns to his modern-day life, he finds his mother upset at having been dumped by her latest boyfriend, lamenting that "life isn't supposed to be like this". The newly-enlightened David assures her that life "isn't supposed to be like anything". She congratulates him on this profound wisdom.

Pleasantville received rapturous reviews when it was first released, and society at that time (apart from the odd fringe, bigoted relic, like your grandma) was thoroughly sold on the idea that sexual liberation and non-traditional families were totems of progress and positivity, that would enrich, enhance, and empower the children who grew up in such environments.

Thirty years on, and those children aren't feeling so enriched, enhanced, or empowered.

On the contrary: exhaustive research (more of which later) shows that children have, on the whole, been severely disadvantaged by the sexual revolution and its offshoots of divorce, single-parent homes, and a revolving door of "stepparents" - and that these disadvantages can last a lifetime.

The children of the divorce boom, that peaked in the '70s and '80s, and started to decline in the '90s, only because less people were getting married in the first place, are now middle-aged, and they are finding their voice.

Dismissible in their younger years as too naive and inexperienced to understand how adult relationships "really are" - reflected by the depiction of the initially more conservative David in Pleasantville - they aren't so easy to brush off now that they are 50 and have been married for 15 years themselves.

The Institute for Family Studies reports that many middle-aged adults who came from broken homes experience enduring feelings of grief and loss, family role reversals ('parentification'), and deep-seated relational struggles that persist decades later. This is on top of the avalanche of research showing divorce and single parent homes predict poorer outcomes in just about every area of life - educational, economic, personal, social, and medical. Children from broken homes typically grow up with a higher risk of health problems, face increased mortality for conditions such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, and die on average five years earlier. Facing parental divorce in childhood is the single strongest predictor of an early death.

While the modern mindset encourages us to downplay these findings - "Jesus, these kids need to just get over it, so what if their parents split up, it's not like anyone died" - large-scale studies have in fact found that parental divorce can be more damaging to children than parental death.

That's a confronting notion for many to consider, but the evidence strongly suggests that, for many children, it's true. If we lived in a society where half of all children were losing a parent to death before they reached the age of 14, we would understand why this would likely have severe and detrimental impacts on the child, and consequently the society, for many years to come.

The reality is that we live in a society where something that may be worse is happening to half of all children, and yet we have, for decades, been encouraged to dismiss it, to accept it as normal, or even (as reflected in Pleasantville) to see it as enlightened and aspirational.

None of this has occurred by accident: on the contrary, the social engineers who unleashed the sexual revolution knew exactly what they were doing. They knew precisely how damaging mass family breakdown would be to children and to society, because they knew there was a reason that, prior to the 1960s, every advanced society on earth adopted lifelong monogamous marriage as the gold standard and strongly stigmatised divorce.

So, the divorce boom wasn't some well-intentioned but ultimately misguided experiment, that was meant to produce better outcomes, but - oops! - ruined innumerable lives instead.

The ruined lives were the intention, and this is clear by the sudden shift in programming and propaganda we see now.

I have watched two films recently that powerfully contradict messages from '90s programming like Pleasantville regarding sexual attitudes and family structure, those films being 2018's The Lie and 2023's Three Birthdays.

In The Lie, emotionally fragile 15-year-old Kayla pretends (very convincingly) to murder her best friend in a desperate bid to get her separated parents back together, whilst in Three Birthdays, 17-year-old Bobbie gets shot and nearly dies, which is shown as punishing her parents for their extra-marital affairs and plans to divorce.

Three Birthdays, which is set in the early 1970s, is a particularly poignant portrait of the rampant family destruction that was borne out of the sexual revolution, in which Bobbie's middle-class, academic parents (they both work as university professors) are depicted as gullible, self-obsessed, and vain, stupidly falling for leftist propaganda about sexual "liberation" which has done nothing but entrap them both in terrible situations (both are having affairs which end badly), whilst destroying the happiness and stability of their child.

A far cry indeed from Pleasantville.

This suggests we are in the midst of witnessing a coordinated backlash against the sexual permissiveness and family fragmentation of the 1970s and beyond, as the whole engineered arc goes full circle.

The sexual revolution was engineered (more on that here), the broken families and damaged children were engineered, and the backlash is engineered - all to serve a preordained purpose.

We can be quite sure of this because, unlike other social trends known to harm children, like mass vaccination, there have been extensive, well-funded studies into the field of family breakdown and its effects on children.

Extensive funding is only made available in areas that social engineers ultimately intend to weaponise.

For example, the effects of loneliness and isolation were extensively studied by the establishment for many years, not so that they could prevent it, but so they could inflict more of it. After years of well-funded, definitive studies showing how devastating loneliness and social isolation were, the world's governments gave us "covid", replete with lockdowns, house arrest, and mass business collapse, in order to socially isolate us further.

Governments studied loneliness as they are committed to making the population more manageable and shorter lived - and they found that cutting people off from support networks, and atomising them alone at home, helps to achieve both of these goals.

Equally, family breakdown has been studied so extensively so that the findings can subsequently be used against the populace.

A key agenda item of the ruling classes is to destroy the family and make child-rearing a state responsibility. Huge inroads have been made towards that goal via women's liberation, which was engineered to ensure both parents were out of the home all day, so children could be enrolled in state indoctrination camps such as daycare as soon as possible. Schools have also steadily increased their influence over children, by first introducing school dinners (many children used to go home for lunch), then 'after-school clubs', and now 'breakfast clubs', too - all of these further erode the power and influence of the family over shaping the next generation, and the average British family now only spends about six hours of 'quality time' a week together.

The end goal, as outlined in elite blueprint Brave New World, is to do away with the concept of parents and families all together, and have children raised by the state.

So, how could the state effectively 'confiscate' large numbers of children from parents?

How does it do that now?

The state uses its agents to judge that a home environment is so damaging to children, they must be removed from it. Over 30,000 children are removed from their homes every year and placed into state care (foster or children's homes - and the number of children's homes being built across the UK is increasing).

Therefore, it is not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine that, in a society that took a sudden swing to the hard right (as I predict ours will), legislation could be passed - based on the abundance of scholarly evidence demonstrating this - that broken homes are so damaging to children, they must be removed from them.

It sounds outrageous and outlandish to consider, but extrapolating from the government expending huge resources on studying the damaging effects of loneliness and isolation so they could use this research for nefarious purposes, I can only think there must be sinister intentions behind all the funding given to studying the effects of family breakdown, as well.

This is also effectively exactly what happens in The Handmaid's Tale (which I believe is predictive programming, for the same reason I believe Pleasantville was - high-profile, star-studded productions always are).

In The Handmaid's Tale, children are routinely removed from single, unmarried, or gay households and placed with more "appropriate" parents, and that is something that could, plausibly, become reality in a world where authoritarian governments were in control, presiding over a fertility crisis (as the West is increasingly facing). Would they allow the few children they were being born to be raised by these "degenerates", or would they remove them and place them with more "appropriate" people?

Reform's recent declaration that they would prioritise married parents over single ones for housing may give us some clues on where the political winds are blowing in this area, and certainly, probable next US president, JD Vance, and his close links to the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation give further pause for thought.

If a child is removed from their parents by the state and placed into either a children's home or foster care, then - even if the child is being cared for on a day-to-day basis by a parental figure, as in the case of fostering - the state still has full legal control over that child in terms of, for instance, vaccination. A child in foster care will be fully injected as per the recommended schedule, regardless of the wishes of either their biological parents or the foster carers, so it's clear why this arrangement suits the state much better than allowing children to be raised by their biological, or even adoptive, parents.

Many long-term foster parents would like to adopt, but are put off by the fact that, as soon as they adopt the child, the payments from the state allowing them to support the child, stop. Only about 9% of children who go into foster care end up being adopted. It's clear to see, then, that in a society where job vacancies are contracting rapidly - especially for women - many couples might be incentivised to foster, but not adopt. A child in foster care is, legally, being raised by the state, so this is one plausible mechanism by which the state may continue to erode families and the concept of parental autonomy, and make child-rearing increasingly a state-directed business.

To get us to this point, it's critical to understand that what we think of as modern culture - in particular, youth culture and sexual liberation - have been, from the start, cruel and long-game tricks, foisted on the population by malevolent social engineers in order to have all the destructive effects they have had, and to lead us to exactly the point we are now at.

When looking at the architects of this scam, people are quick to blame the Boomers, but in fact, the social and legal changes that made the sexual revolution and widespread family breakdown possible, were not instituted by the Boomers.

The advances and acts that gave us the pill, abortion, easier divorce and the dissolution of parental authority over older teenagers, came about in the 1960s, with the Abortion Act in 1967, the Divorce Reform Act in 1969, and the Family Reform Act of the same year. The median age of the Boomers at this time was 14.

Boomers did not implement these laws, and had no role in devising them. They simply entered an adult world that had changed radically because of these reforms, whilst they themselves had spent several formative years beforehand being primed for this new world by the spellbinding might of television.

It is not a coincidence that we got the sexual revolution and its offshoots in the 1960s, the decade directly following most households acquiring a television (by 1960, about 80% of all UK households had one).

Television has a direct and literal spellbinding effect, putting viewers into a highly suggestible trance-like state, akin to being hypnotised. It delivers what is literally called "programming" (whilst 'Hollywood' is named for the wood of the Holly tree, traditionally used by spell-casting wizards to make wands).

There is an "antisemitic" trope that having a TV in your home is akin to having a Jew in your living room, due to the dominance of this particular ethno-religious group in the entertainment industry. When I was researching Pleasantville, I looked up the origins of the screenwriter, Gary Ross, and was entirely unsurprised to find he is a member of this group. (Incidentally, or not, Ross' father wrote a popular TV movie called 'Satan's School for Girls'.)

This is in keeping with the evidence suggesting that the ruling classes are disproportionately composed of supremacist Jewish individuals, who wish to sabotage other, particularly Christian, cultures, by undermining their moral institutions such as the family, because morally weak cultures are easier to control and ultimately wipe out. This is also why (again, disproportionately Jewish) social engineers flood enemy regimes with pornography, which is a weapon of war meant to demoralise and neutralise the urge to form families and fight back.

Meanwhile, the state of Israel - where pornography consumption is strictly forbidden by the Orthodox community - continues to be extremely supportive of traditional family values, single parents are far less common (only about 8.9% of mothers are single), and the country has resisted many of the social changes of the sexual revolution (gay marriage, for instance, cannot be conducted in Israel). While abortion is legal in Israel, the rates are amongst the lowest in the Western world, and continuing to decline. Israel's fertility rate is a robust 2.9 - well above replacement rate, and higher than any other developed nation.

While the decline happening in other Western nations cannot be accredited indiscriminately to "the Jews" - most Jews are not engaged in deliberate, wide-scale social engineering, and there are significant numbers of non-Jewish individuals amongst the malevolent ruling classes - there is nevertheless disproportionate Jewish influence in dominant social engineering initiatives, and Jews stand to benefit from them, given that Jewish communities are some of the very few in the Western world which are actively growing in number. Every other ethnic group is declining. Some, such as white Europeans, are declining particularly sharply.

White Europeans have historically been Christians, and, rather famously, Jews aren't particularly fond of Christians, hence war has been waged especially on Christian culture. It's worked, with the UK as of 2021 no longer considered a Christian country.

(Jews have also historically disliked Muslims, which accounts for the relentless warmongering of the Israeli-American-British establishment on majority Muslim countries.)

So, social engineers, who are disproportionately but not exclusively Jewish, have worked to unseam what was once known as 'Christendom', and they have done that by attacking the very fabric of society itself - the family - which they have diligently disintegrated by the effective abolition of lifelong monogamous marriage (people getting married in their twenties and staying married for life - the norm until the 1960s - is now a veritable anachronism amongst white Europeans).

The reason every successful society had adopted this model previously as the gold standard for relationships is not because every society prior to Western ones in the 1960s were evil and oppressive and wanted to stop people having harmless fun.

It is because every other possible arrangement where it comes to sexual relationships and procreation had already been tried - polygamy, polygyny, harems - and none produced anywhere near as positive outcomes as monogamous marriage. Hence, every aspirational culture on earth adopted marriage and imposed it as the societal expectation and norm.

Yet to re-establish a society where lifelong marriage is attainable for most people means radically reframing attitudes to sex and relationships in a way that would seem (to coin a phrase) inconceivable to most modern people, both men and women. The traditional ways of doing things are now seen as unrealistic and unattainable - despite being attained and realised by the vast majority of people for centuries.

Up until the relatively recent past, men were prepared to get married in their early twenties, because they were given the firm and unambiguous message it was the only way they could access regular sex. They were informed that, in order to be qualified for a sexual relationship, they had to make a lifelong commitment to a woman and be in a position to provide for her and their children. Men would otherwise be expected to be celibate (while not all of them may have strictly conformed to this, especially during periods of social instability like war, it was, nevertheless, the strong social expectation). Hence, most men got married before they were 30 and many by 25.

Women, meanwhile, were made very aware that having sex outside of marriage carried with it both huge social stigma, and the risk of bearing a child out of wedlock, which would probably be removed from her or (if she was lucky) passed off as a late baby of her mother's and she would only ever be known to the baby as its sister (many families have these stories if you go back a few generations).

Therefore, both sexes, on the whole, reserved sex for marriage, and of the premarital sex that did occur, it was generally literally that - pre-marital, as in, a stage on the way to wedlock (hence the famous shotgun weddings), not the bleary, incoherent 'hook-ups' and 'situationships' of today, which increasingly fail to translate into stable, lasting relationships.

Reserving sex for marriage (or at least, for someone one went on to marry), and remaining faithful within that marriage, represented the expectation and the norm until the 1950s, when we got deviant fraudsters like Alfred Kinsey, who interviewed a load of convicts and child molesters, and then tried to pass his findings off as a reflection of normal human sexual behaviour.

This is how the sexual revolution was mainstreamed - not via organic social change, but via subversive propagandists like Kinsey telling the population promiscuity, infidelity, and worse were already the norm, people had simply concealed such behaviour in the past. So, if you weren't being sexually "liberated" and sleeping around now - now that it was all out in the open and socially accepted - you were being, like, totally square.

Former staff writer at Cosmopolitan magazine, Sue Ellen Browder, explained she and her colleagues did something very similar: they were tasked by the "higher-ups" with writing case studies about ambitious young women who eschewed marriage and family, and pursued promiscuity and careers instead, sleeping with their bosses to get ahead.

The problem with these "case studies"? They were completely made up. Cosmo journalists were instructed to invent them and put them out in the magazine as if they were real, knowing that impressionable young women would read them, and emulate the behaviour. And that's exactly what happened - and went on to happen with various other propagandist vehicles that pushed the 'joys' of casual sex, such as the sitcoms Friends and Sex and the City - and, of course, movies like Pleasantville.

It is instructive that in this movie, the character Jennifer is depicted as possessing vast sexual experience, even though she is only seventeen years old - and this is represented as unremarkable: normal behaviour for a modern teenage girl.

This soon reflected in reality, and I vividly remember an illustrative conversation I had with a 24-year-old young woman, about ten years ago. She was a new addition to the office I was working in at the time, and I had become friendly with her. One day, she came in looking visibly upset, and kept disappearing off to the toilets, it being obvious when she came back she'd been crying.

I asked her what was wrong, and she divulged her boyfriend had just dumped her. I said I was sorry to hear that, and did she want to go for a drink after work to talk about it?

She did, so off we went. Chugging back the Chardonnay, she poured over the details of the approximately year-long relationship, trying to find an explanation for why it might have failed.

"I really can't understand it," she sighed. "I thought it was such a good relationship. I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the fact he wasn't very experienced."

"I mean, Miri...," Here she lowered her voice conspiratorially, as if I wasn't going to believe what she said next. "He'd only slept with ten people!"

This young woman went on to get married about five years later (not to the "inexperienced" boyfriend) - and then was divorced about three years after that.

Wearily predictably, as - despite the propaganda surrounding the subject, promising that liberation and experimentation in youth would lead to stronger marriages later on - liberal sexual attitudes predict weaker marriages - or no marriages at all (the UK's marriage rate is now the lowest on record).

In essence, the populace was tricked. Starting with the Boomers, encompassing Gen X, and leading onto the Millennials, millions of people were propagandised and brainwashed into behaving in ways that were entirely against their own interests, and most importantly, against their children's.

As a result of this, and unsurprisingly, the current generation of under-30s, Generation Z, have become much more conservative, demonstrating little interest in promiscuity or indeed sexual relationships at all, with so many of them having witnessed such relationships end in complete catastrophe for their older siblings, parents, and grandparents. Some members of Gen Z visiting their immediate family now have to go to six different houses to do so, when parents and grandparents are all divorced.

The consequences of this - of growing up in a culture where so many young people lacked a model of a stable, long-term relationship to learn from - means many simply don't know how to form them. Gen Z are projected to become the most single and the most childless generation in history.

Now that the social engineering plot to get us to this point - where the young are highly unlikely to be able to form lasting marriages and families - has successfully achieved its goals, the coordinated backlash against the sexual revolution and mass family breakdown can be increasingly unveiled.

Now that those most badly affected by it are no longer malleable "Davids" - inexperienced youth who can be dismissed as "too young to understand" - but middle-aged adults with spouses and children of their own, the climate is ripe for an explosion of sophisticated and articulate polemics detailing just how catastrophic family breakdown has really been.

Writing on X, children's rights activist and founder of pressure group, 'Them Before Us', Katy Faust (aged 50), states:

"We have an entire generation who grew up in families fragmented by no-fault divorce and sexual “liberation”—with parents who divorced, never married each other, or brought a revolving door of partners into the home.

Those children were starved of the stability, maternal love, and paternal love they needed to mature. Parents are supposed to understand, support, and accommodate their children. But when adult sexual identity, validation, and desire take priority, children are forced to understand, support, and accommodate their parents. Adult sexual liberation --> inverting the parent-child relationship. Those kids are adults now, but they never really had a childhood."

Faust has over 50,000 followers on X, and the chorus of voices echoing her sentiments is getting louder.

Activists like Faust may be entirely well-intentioned, and much of what she says is true - but as these sentiments, and associated movements, ascend further into the mainstream and gain more high-profile attention, we can only assume a nefarious end goal.

Exposing family breakdown and single parent homes as so damaging to children that children must be removed from those homes is an end goal that cannot, given the current political climate, be ruled out.

Obviously, I don't know for a fact if this is going to happen and very much hope that it doesn't, but I do know that there is no way the same ruling classes who engineered mass divorce and family breakdown in the first place, have now developed genuine empathy for those who suffered the worst effects of these trends. So, there is another reason for the establishment deciding to now promote and validate this suffering, and there is a reason they are abruptly changing the themes of their spellbinding social programming movies, from glowingly endorsing divorce and single parenthood, to vituperatively condemning it.

We are also seeing a growing backlash against the abomination of surrogacy - thankfully - a despicable practice epitomising the very worst of adult narcissism as given to us by the sexual revolution: that adult desires trump everything else, and it is now the responsibility of children to suffer and sacrifice on behalf of adults, rather than (as it had previously been for the whole of human history) the other way around.

Surrogacy (whether commercial or "altruistic") can be reasonably considered to be a subhuman behaviour, because we don't even subject domestic pets to this kind of suffering: we recognise that puppies and kittens must be left with their mothers until they are at least eight weeks old (relative human age, 3-4 years), as removing them at birth would cause irreparable damage.

In the case of human infants, however - once they've been ordered to precise specifications - we have no trouble ripping them from their mothers at birth in order to satisfy selfish adult demands, and this situation is inevitable when you tell a whole society that adults and their wants are more important than children and their needs, which is the sexual revolution's central messaging. This makes the concept of "altruistic" surrogacy particularly spurious - where it's claimed there are no victims because a woman is doing it for philanthropic reasons, rather than being exploited for money.

Yet defenders of "altruistic" surrogacy blithely dismiss the biggest victim of all - the child. The child suffers just as much whether the surrogate mother has been paid or not, and experiences exactly the same colossal trauma of being removed at birth from the only other human being they have ever known in order to be placed instead with (not infrequently male) strangers.

Removing an infant from its mother at birth causes severe, immediate, and long-lasting neurobiological and emotional trauma for the child, regardless of the circumstances surrounding this removal.

Inevitably, surrogacy also leads to paedophilia and child trafficking, because again, these are predictable consequences of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution says children must sacrifice their families, homes, and stability for what adults want, so it's not difficult to see how this mindset leads to children being forced to sacrifice other things, too. Once children's needs are not at the forefront of family structure, but adult desires are, then increased incidences of child abuse and child trafficking are inevitable.

Children are least likely to experience sexual abuse when they are raised by their married biological parents, and most likely to experience it when they live with unrelated adult males.

So, while it may be regarded as as uniform positive that the abhorrent practice of surrogacy is being increasingly exposed and hopefully terminated, again we have to wonder why these exposes are happening across the mainstream press now, and whether it is another ruse to ultimately take people's children.

Note that most conservative, traditional Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, completely outlaw surrogacy.

So whether we're looking at trends in surrogacy, divorce, or single parenthood, the pattern remains the same: the ruling classes presiding over the West have spent the last 70 years creating a society where millions of children now live in environments that, we have an overwhelming abundance of evidence to show, are not optimal for them, and may be acutely dangerous to them.

The social engineers behind all this knew the risks of non-traditional families to children (everyone did, until the 1960s: why are "evil stepparents" such a common literary trope, after all?) - and then intentionally created a society that would ensure as many children as possible were raised in them.

They had to invest an immense amount of money and resources into making this a reality, overturning centuries of tradition and expectation, where they encountered, at first, huge pushback. Therefore, there must have been an enormous incentive for them to do this. There must have been some very significant payoff for them.

I've always thought they messed up a bit with their aggressive promotion of broken homes, as these are more likely to produce 'conspiracy theorists' (the reasoning goes that people who feel betrayed by their first authority figures, parents, often go on to distrust other authority figures, such as doctors and government officials, too - even The Guardian acknowledges this). However, it would make sense they were prepared to shoulder this significant inconvenience if there was an even bigger bonus in it for them.

We are now in a highly febrile climate where it comes to parenting (especially mothering), courtesy of the extremely high-profile Lindsay Clancy case. Parental/maternal psychological health, and the risk parents might pose to children, is currently acutely under the microscope.

Some speculate the Clancy case could be used as a springboard to launch more invasive surveillance and assessment measures of parents, and used to take further action if a child is deemed sufficiently "at risk". Consequently, the sheer volume of scholarly literature showing the negative effects of family breakdown on children, and the research indicating that single mothers in particular are highly prone to mental health issues, makes it very plausible that, if such measures were brought into place, children from divorced and single-parent homes would be strongly highlighted as a cause for concern.

This is particularly so in light of the ongoing scandal surrounding pornographer and "sex worker", Bonnie Blue, who alleges to have recently had a child, a development which has created huge moral outrage and safeguarding concerns. The Guardian reports:

"Blue, who gave birth to her first child (father unconfirmed) last month, is carrying that enrage-to-engage ethos into motherhood. She has been sharing postpartum content with her subscribers and recently escalated to posting a video where she is holding a baby and is surrounded by men in balaclavas while promoting her sexual content. It is unclear if it’s actually her baby or a doll in the video but, either way, it’s disturbing. So much so that it’s even got me agreeing with the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, for perhaps the first time ever. Speaking to Sky News last week, Badenoch said that the video was a “safeguarding issue”. She added that while it is tempting to ignore the whole disgusting affair, doing so risks “normalising babies in porn adverts”.

In response, Blue sent Sky News a statement insisting “my baby is loved, protected, and incredibly well cared for”. Blue may love her baby but there is obviously nothing protective about using your child to entice people to watch you perform sexual acts. Clearly there should be an investigation into this child’s welfare."

Note that Blue not only presents as a single mother, but that the father is "unknown".

The Bonnie Blue character appears to be some sort of scripted intelligence creation, designed precisely to provoke the kind of moral outrage - and the kind of conversations about child welfare - that the nation is currently having.

RadarOnline reports that 'Bonnie Blue 'Faces Having Baby Taken Away by Social Services'  whilst a child protection lawyer has spoken to the media of her concerns.

This could, feasibly, be the beginning of the domino effect to take children from parents raising children in non-traditional environments, particularly single mothers. Blue could be used as a cautionary tale, purporting to show us what happens when we give young, unmarried women free agency over the bodies and reproductive choices - everything the most extreme conservative moralisers always said would happen. After all, look at how many of these young girls are now budding Bonnie Blues themselves with their OnlyFans accounts (a site France has recently announced it may ban). Any of these women could become pregnant at any time, some of them already have children - surely child protective services should be keeping a close eye on them too?

It does all seem to be going in a certain direction.

I know the majority of my readership doesn't have young children, and is past the stage they're looking to expand their families, so none of this is likely to apply directly to you, dear reader - but to any younger family members or friends you might have, looking to become parents, I would give this advice: get married, stay married, have your own children or adopt, and stay away from surrogacy - because children produced in these unconventional arrangements may be amongst the first to be targeted by the state for "monitoring", were Clancy/Blue-inspired "child protection" measures to come into place.

And if my speculations are wrong, if we never get Gilead-style governments with their beady 'Five Eyes' intelligence agencies watching parents' every move, then, by getting and staying married, prospective parents have still given their children an enormous benefit and head start in life, which enhances their chances of success in just about every area...

... Apart from becoming conspiracy theorists.

But I'm sure you, dear reader, can ably instruct them on that one!

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.