Lindsay Clancy – Feminist psychosis
Reply
Ave Christe Rex
Will this tip men over the edge?
Lindsay Clancy hysteria
No, We Are Not All Lindsay Clancy
Some of us feel more like Patrick: helpless in the presence of unstable women
Janice Fiamengo, Sep 04, 2026
The only thing more striking than the adulation that has erupted in response to Lindsay Clancy’s admitted killing of her three children has been the torrent of anger and suspicion poured out against then-husband Patrick Clancy.
I can’t think of a single example, recent or historical, in which a bereaved mother, her children dead at her ex-husband’s hand, has been subject to anything other than profound sympathy.
It’s not uncommon for such mothers to become revered public figures, campaigning for changes in law or public opinion, and applauded for their “courage” in picking up the pieces of their lives.
One such is Claire Throssell, a British mother whose ex-husband killed their two sons and himself in 2014 by setting their house afire. No one has publicly speculated that Throssell drove her ex-husband to the deed. No one alleged that police should have more closely investigated her actions on the days leading up to the crime.
Throssell, in fact, was centrally involved in a successful feminist campaign to rewrite UK custody law in order to change the presumption that it is generally good for children to have contact with both parents after divorce. The new legislation, not yet formalized, will mean that even fewer divorced fathers will be able to maintain close contact with their children.
The Lindsay Clancy case – Is it a watershed moment?
Is it a watershed moment in the relations between men and women? Is it a sign that men have absolutely had enough of women and their emotional instability? This is the first of a series of comments I will post in answer to those questions.
*****
Lindsay Clancy and the Perennial Innocence of Killer-Mothers
Western criminal law has been soft on violent mothers for at least the past 250 years
Janice Fiamengo, Aug 25, 2026
The headlines are standard: “Women in pink rally in support of Lindsay Clancy who is on trial for killing 3 children,’” “America’s saddest murder trial: mental health in focus in Lindsay Clancy case,” “Lindsay Clancy’s trial shows how badly the system fails mothers,” and “Everyone Failed Lindsay Clancy.”
The headlines look away from the actual victims in the case: the three helpless children who were strangled to death in early 2023. All the sympathetic emphasis is on their mother, portrayed as a tragic figure allegedly “failed” by others and not morally responsible for her horrific act.
As in many cases of mothers who murder their children (I discuss other recent cases here), Lindsay Clancy has defenders aplenty eager to cry for her and proclaim their solidarity (for one compilation, see here). Some are even willing to say that they have felt as she allegedly felt—eager to dispatch their children. Her grisly act has provoked masses of donations to a GoFundMe account (reportedly at one million dollars) as well as enthusiastic rallies of (mostly) women proclaiming her innocence.
Many pink-themed supporters insist on asserting, without logical or evidentiary foundation, that it was Patrick Clancy, Lindsay’s then-husband, who deserves the lion’s share of the blame, whether for failing to support his wife adequately during her post-partum depression or even, as some allege, for killing the children himself and then convincing his mentally fragile wife to take the blame.
Non Nobis Domine
The inspiring masculine end to Kenneth Brenaugh’s production of Henry V.
Do women abuse boys?
News.com.au presented a report yesterday of a teacher jailed for ‘raping’ a teenage boy: Teacher who raped student, 15, sobbed as she was jailed for 12 years. One might wonder how common such sexual abuse is. After all, aren’t we led to believe that only men are guilty of such horrendous crimes? The video below gives an insight into this issue.
The Australian War Memorial scandal
The AWM and Historians’ Made-up Wars
Robert Hill, Quadrant, Aug 28 2026
On November 14, 2025, Rachel Perkins and Henry Reynolds came to the Australian War Memorial to launch The Australian Wars, a collection edited by Perkins, Stephen Gapps, Mina Murray and Reynolds. There is nothing remarkable about a work of military history being launched at the War Memorial; it is precisely where one might expect such a book to be presented and sold. What was remarkable was that The Australian Wars does not establish its subject as military history so much as assert it. The book presents a politically and ideologically charged reconstruction of colonial violence as warfare, yet the military characteristics necessary to sustain that classification are not merely contested: when examined, they are strikingly absent. Its launch inside the Memorial, and its inclusion within the Memorial’s bookshop, therefore, did more than promote a book: it bestowed institutional legitimacy upon the conclusion before the historical case had been made.
The issue is not whether violence occurred on the British colonial frontier in Australia — hereafter, the “British frontier”. Aboriginal people were killed, settlers were killed, massacres occurred and reprisals followed. The far larger claim is that these events amounted to wars: conflicts properly belonging to the same historical category as the wars and military operations commemorated within the Australian War Memorial. That distinction matters. Much of the alleged warfare occurred not on the frontier of an Australian nation, but on the frontiers of separate British colonies under the Crown. To place those conflicts within the Australian War Memorial therefore requires more than demonstrating colonial violence. It requires demonstrating that the historical threshold of war was actually met. That proposition deserves something stronger than repetition, moral force or modern consensus.
It requires proof.
In my earlier article at Quadrant Online, The ‘Wars’ That Weren’t, I demonstrated that once the constituent incidents are disaggregated, the national “Frontier Wars” narrative loses its military coherence. What remains are separate episodes of killing, reprisal, policing and local resistance. Here I reach the same conclusion from the opposite direction. If these really were wars, where is the military footprint they should have left behind?
Mehreen Faruqi – suffering from white-skin envy
Senator Mehreen Faruqi comes from one of the backward sh*tholes of Asia, a country that is presently torturing one of its heroes, a man that would be a hero in any country of the West, a dashing, handsome, swash-buckling, all-round cricketer that thrilled stadiums with his cricketing feats. Regrettably, Faruqui belongs to the class of Imran Khan’s tormenters.
And she’s in Australia, abusing the people and the country that has given her a life that is light years away from the degradation most of her fellow-countrymen suffer: a salary well above the ordinary Australian battler, the means to invest and profit from her investments, and a platform from which to preach her far-left ideas and abuse the people that allowed her into their country.
Sadly, for Faruqi, despite all the benefits accrued to her by her position in Australia, she cannot change her skin which is why she constantly refers to its colour.
Russia’s hybrid war
Below is an excellent interview with Sean Wiswesser, author of TRADECRAFT, TACTICS AND DIRTY TRICKS: RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE & PUTIN’S SECRET WAR
Hybrid warfare is a strategy that blends conventional military force with non‑military tools—such as cyberattacks, disinformation, economic pressure, and proxy actors—to achieve political objectives while staying below the threshold of open war.
Hybrid warfare integrates multiple instruments of power—military, political, economic, informational, and technological—to exploit ambiguity and weaken an opponent without triggering full-scale conflict. It deliberately blurs the lines between war and peace, state and non‑state actors, and overt and covert action.