Seems strange that an identical case happened in Ireland a few years ago. An opinion from someone else: “Have some respect for the family!” These are the usual rejoinders one receives when questioning the veracity of certain media events, and the overall purpose of these reactions is to shift the discussion further into irrational emotional territory, and away from pragmatic analysis. “How can you be pragmatic, you monster!? Children have just died!!” And so on and so forth. The most emotively manipulative scenario possible - and thereby, the most likely to shut down people’s rational minds and keep them firmly rooted in inflamed emotion - is child death. That’s precisely why we have to be ultra-sceptical and analytical whenever there’s a media circus surrounding high-profile alleged child deaths. In the unlikely event you were unaware of the Lindsay Clancy story, it regards the 2023 case of American mother Clancy strangling to death her three children - five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan. She then attempted suicide by cutting her wrists and neck and jumping from a second-story window, sustaining injuries that left her paralysed from the waist down. Clancy said she had heard an auditory hallucination ordering her to commit the acts and felt an irresistible urge to comply. The case went to trial in July this year, with the prosecution arguing that Clancy made a deliberate and calculated decision to kill the children, whereas the defence has contested that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis, and not in control of her actions. After a five-week trial, the jury are now deliberating their verdict. The case has attracted enormous attention worldwide, both on mainstream and social media, as people argue ferociously over whether Clancy was responsible for her actions, or not guilty by way of insanity - the effects of postpartum depression, and the cocktail of psychoactive medication she was taking to manage it. The support for Clancy is primarily coming from women, who sympathise with her mental health conditions and the alleged mismanagement of them by the medical industry. The New York Times reports: “Hundreds have shown up outside the courthouse in Plymouth, Mass., to rally for Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse whose psychiatric care was so uncoordinated, the defense maintains, that doctors subjected her to “horrific overmedication,” leading to dangerous auditory hallucinations. “Any one of us who have dealt with mental health, anxiety, depression, postpartum — I think we just know that any one of us could be sitting in her chair,” Renee Kimball, the lead organizer of the rally, told a local news outlet.“ It continues: “Online a kind of consensus certainty quickly emerged around the notion of Clancy’s victimization. Any serious reckoning with the central brutality — that Clancy strangled her daughter Cora, 5, and sons Dawson, 3, and Callen, 8 months, with exercise bands in their basement — has been subordinated to the compassion for her underlying anguish. In some corners of TikTok and Instagram, where charitable feeling for Clancy is at a high pitch, unhinged conspiracy theories — born perhaps of the challenge in believing that a mother could do such a thing — suggest that maybe it was someone else behind the killings, even if Clancy has admitted to them. On Etsy, there are at least 25 different kinds of pro-Clancy T-shirts available for sale. (“Team Lindsay!” reads one.)“ This is important context to consider when we analyse why such a psychological operation might be enacted on the world stage, but first, for your perusal and consideration, I submit the evidence that this is, indeed, a psychological operation - a psyop. Owen Benjamin presented a very compelling case, when he said: “Just a quick one on the Clancy trial. I think it’s another energy harvesting psyop and it’s working because it’s keeping the normies entertained and arguing. It’s almost identical to a case in Ireland from 2020. A mother of 3, also a paediatric nurse strangled her 3 kids while her husband was at work. He showed up just as it was all over and acted very strangely ever since - courting the media and organising fund raisers within days. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity as she had postpartum, was on a cocktail of SSRI’s and had visited a hospital a week earlier and wasn’t admitted. Exact same story. Both incidents happened on the same date: Morley: 24th Jan 2020 Clancy: 24th Jan 2023. Both women were nurses. Both husbands seem suspicious. Both countries divided on who’s to blame. Both sets of kids were 2 boys and 1 girl and had the same initials: Morley: Conor, Darragh and Carla (CDC) Clancy: Cora, Dawson and Callan (CDC).“ What are the odds, huh? Of course, with the double C children’s names, we have our 33, but we also have it with Lindsay Clancy. Using the code that A = 1, B = 2 and so on, and factoring in that in numerology, you add numbers together to get to a single digit, L = 12, 1+2 = 3, so LC = 33 - and these are initials we are already very familiar with from other high-profile operations, such as Lucy Connolly. In addition, as detailed in Francis O’Neill’s exploration of Tom Moran’s the Devil’s Hour - a series explicitly focused on the significance of the number 33 - the protagonist is named Lucy Chambers - LC. So we can reasonably make a case at this point that the initials LC in a high-profile media production, are significant. Further contributing to the evidence of the Clancy case being contrived, the researcher known on X as ‘Morgan’ observed: “At this point, the Lindsay Clancy case reads like a psyop to me. Watching the trial only deepened my suspicion. The evidence, testimony, Patrick’s behaviour, both fundraising networks, the nonprofit that followed and the institutional interests surrounding postpartum mental health have left me questioning the story at its most basic level. I’m not even convinced the children existed in the first place. That is how little confidence I now have in what has been presented. I question Lindsay’s identity, the marriage as presented, the timeline involving Patrick’s current wife and whether the people surrounding this case have relationships and affiliations the public hasn’t been told about. Then ask what this narrative produces. And how many people are involved with ties to the following- ➟ More psychiatric screening and surveillance of mothers ➟ More medication and specialized maternal mental health infrastructure ➟ More nonprofit and research funding ➟ More institutional authority to intervene in families ➟ A cultural image of postpartum women as unstable and potentially dangerous. Zoom out further and the social effect is division. Men distrust women. Women distrust men. Marriage becomes undesirable. Children become liabilities. Families weaken and institutions assume more of the authority families once held themselves. Strong families create loyalty, protection and independence. Atomized people are far easier to govern. So I’m less interested in being told what to believe and far more interested in who gets funded, who gains authority, what policies follow and how many supposedly unrelated players ultimately benefit. Because this story has holes.“ I have emphasised the penultimate paragraph in Morgan’s analysis, because, in my view, this is the central issue regarding why this psyop has been staged and what the wider purpose of it is. I am sometimes criticised in my psyop analyses for not presenting enough forensic and incontrovertible “evidence” that an event is fake, but trawling through every minor detail and obscure anomaly in a case over many weeks or months isn’t my style - plenty of other people do that, and they do a stellar job, but that’s not my main focus, because intrinsically evidencing that an event was fake, doesn’t necessarily offer a compelling explanation for why it was faked. And that’s what captures my interest much more. I believe we are going to see the media present an increasing spate of cases regarding parents - mainly, although not exclusively, mothers - flipping and murdering their children, to serve the aims that Morgan highlights: to drive a further wedge between men and women and prevent family formation, and to begin to sow the narrative in the mass mind that children just aren’t safe with parents, and would be better off raised by the state. The mass international sympathy Lindsay Clancy is receiving in the media from, primarily, women is specifically underlining this idea, as so many women are saying explicitly: “that could have been any one of us”. So, that’s the message the public receives - any woman could flip out at any time and murder her kids. Well, what are we going to do, just sit around and wait for that to happen? Or should we take preemptive, preventative steps? For the last sixty years, the ruling classes have been hard at work decimating families and separating parents from children. Beginning with the women’s liberation movement, social engineers worked to get women out of the home and into the workplace so that children could be wrested from parental authority and inducted into state indoctrination camps (schools, daycare) as soon as possible. The encroaching state overreach into family life has continued to gather pace ever since. Not content with having children from 9am-4pm every day, now many schools have state-bankrolled “breakfast clubs“ and “after school clubs“, too. How long until “sleepover clubs” and “weekend clubs” are added, and then the state has effectively replaced parents altogether? Indeed, a recent study showed that the average UK family spends less than one hour a day together. Many cautionary tales in film and literature warn us of a future where childrearing becomes entirely a state responsibility. The novel Brave New World depicts a dystopian world where parents and families don’t exist, and children are raised in state-run hatcheries and conditioning centres. The film Demolition Man, which makes many allusions to Brave New World, shows us a not too distant future - the film is set in 2032 - where pregnancy is illegal without a government license. The article linked above is entitled: “Demolition Man: An Accidental Satirical Warning from 1993 A Sylvester Stallone sci-fi action film dismissed as fluff upon release proves unnervingly prescient, thirty years on.“ Of course, we know now that nothing in these big-budget, star-studded productions is “accidental” and the makers of Demolition Man knew exactly what they were doing by seeding these ideas into the public consciousness. Social engineers around the world have been committed for decades to eradicating the idea of traditional family, and transferring the raising of children to the state. To do this, they require, as ever, public approval, so they are manufacturing the public’s consent for the eventual complete destruction of ordinary family life, by showing how “dangerous” this is to children. You can’t leave children in the hands of their mothers, they might just flip out and murder them. Lindsay Clancy isn’t an anomaly, look at all these women saying it could just as easily have been them. That’s what we’re supposed to think. The “sympathising mothers” we’re seeing all over the press will, in many cases, be crisis actors, further perpetuating this narrative, and making sure it really takes hold of the mass mind. This isn’t to suggest the “overwhelmed mother” trope is entirely fictional, there is certainly plenty of evidence to back it up. Modern mobility trends and the decimation of the extended family and community have left many mothers feeling isolated and unsupported, leading to a surge in mental health issues. A comprehensive study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that the percentage of mothers reporting “excellent” mental health dropped significantly from 38.4% in 2016 to 25.8% in 2023. We can expect that number to continue to sharply decline. Additionally, the mothering resource, ‘Momwell‘, reports, “Intensive mothering ideology, also called the perfect mother myth, is the prevailing set of beliefs telling moms to pour all of their time, energy, and mental space into their children, stay constantly engaged, and seek no fulfillment outside the role. Research links it to more invisible labor and worse mental health outcomes for moms, and paired with thin systemic support, it is a recipe for overwhelm.” Yet instead of responding to this crisis with societal restructure which is more supportive of mothers and children, the response is increasingly to pathologise mothers. We will be increasingly told that women are not merely reacting to the unnatural pressures and poor support systems of modern society, but rather, they are inherently unable to cope with the stresses of parenthood, and so the safest thing for all concerned is to take their children away - or to not let them produce them in the first place. As the infertility crisis (which has been primarily induced by the HPV vaccine) intensifies, it is becoming more and more common that couples require outside intervention to reproduce. This clearly paves the way for a Demolition Man style future where an external entity gets to decide who can reproduce, and, as per Brave New World, in what manner the children will be raised. So, yes, Lindsay Clancy is almost certainly a psyop, and I am indeed “thinking of the families” by saying so - the families that could be destroyed, or never permitted to form in the first place, if we as a society react to stories like Clancy’s in the way the media is so malevolently manipulating us to do.
Create an account or sign in to comment