Dig deep enough and exhibit some patience, and you will eventually unearth the real reason behind the things liberals are doing. Like in this Lindsay Clancy ordeal, for example, and why women are flocking to the defense of a woman who strangled her three children to death with exercise bands. To me, the empathetic unity here didn’t make any sense. Murdering children and infants? I don’t care who commits that heinous act. The last humans one would think to see on the streets making heart-hands for the culprit would be women.
Yet, sending love wishes in pink shirts, there they are …
Even so, my well-oiled instincts kept telling me this odd unity had something to do with Liberalism, the religious death cult. Whenever death and destruction are involved, Liberalism is always loitering and associated. So it had to be involved here, too. But perhaps there was something else, something I was missing.
I was fair-minded enough to consider that, as a man, I know little about postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis, either one. Having witnessed its effects on women myself peripherally, I knew postpartum depression was pretty powerful, emotional stuff. Maybe that was indeed what was uniting these women, the gender specific experience of deep, hormonal, and confusing emotional suffering. I held that possibility out. In fact, I leaned on that conclusion as the probable reason for the solidarity with Clancy. Genuinely trying to understand, I had some public and private conversations about it, mostly with women. In terms of an explanation, the overwhelming consensus was that women were, indeed, relating to the postpartum depression and empathizing with Clancy’s emotional difficulties. Men could learn something from that—from the direct experience of women with a female issue, that is.
It is like men getting kicked in the groin. Women can’t know what that feels like, because they haven’t testicles. The only way they could know what it feels like is to have testicles and to get kicked in the groin. Then they would know. Likewise, men don’t understand what postpartum depression and psychosis feel like. As women watch men grimace and roll around on the ground after a shot to the beans, men can observe these effects of postpartum depression via women, too. They can’t know what the condition actually feels like, of course, because they aren’t women and can’t have babies, and can’t then physically experience the hormones, the feelings, and ultimately the whole postpartum phenomenon.
Clancy was experiencing this condition powerfully, doctors say, and women are the only ones who can intimately and truly understand and explain it. I imagine it feels like most other depressions, which are a lot like the weather, as Michael Crichton once put it, describing his own bouts with depression. One day it is cloudy, the next is sunny. Or this week has been sunny, and perhaps a whole month has been cloudy. You would like to say the depression is the result of this thing or that thing, but you can’t really put your finger on a singular thing. And although the condition can be mild, it is sometimes virulent, overwhelming, and incapacitating.
My question, as always, is where does God fit into all this? The creator of all things, what role is he playing? He said he was going to punish people for their disobedience, sin, evil, and whatnot. Could all this emotional suffering be his doing? And why was he doing it?
Anyway, it all makes sense; I just wasn’t satisfied with that as an answer for the female solidarity, that women were empathetically relating to Clancy’s postpartum depression. Frankly, I don’t think people care that much about people they don’t know, enough to organize, don pink shirts, and make heart-hands outside of a courthouse. Thus, the empathy reason seemed flimsy, seemed too shallow, too plastic. Besides, the little voice in my head was saying, “Ah, ah, ah, John. You know liberals are phonies, that they don’t do things for legit reasons, or at least the reasons they say they are doing things. There is always an agenda with these people, a motive beneath the faux-compassionate, hard plastic proclamations, signs, and slogans …”
Whenever you are messing with liberals, you have to pickaxe your way through the hard plastic crust, sometimes feet thick. And even when you get to the earth beneath, you sometimes find you are slinging shovel loads of dirt up and way over your head and out of the hole before you find what you are searching for: the real reason liberals are doing things, or aka, paydirt! This is precisely what occurred in this case. I finally unearthed the truth and figured out what these women were in it for. I thought they were a bunch of liberals, turns out that is true. I thought that part of this empathetic defense of Clancy was because, somehow, these women had associated Clancy’s murderous crimes with the abortion issue, Liberalism’s cause supreme.
In other words, if they didn’t defend this woman murdering her children outside the womb, then there is little difference between that and murdering them inside the womb. I’m unsure how they were connecting it, actually, but it seemed logical, and definitely liberal. Liberal women are serious about the right to kill fetuses in the womb, and if you concede this, that Clancy is a murderer of children outside the womb. Then you are a murderer when you do it inside the womb, too. What is the difference, really? It is a connection these liberal women wanted to avoid, I thought, and the best way to prevent it from being made was to champion Clancy and condemn people’s criticism of her. The trick was to do it without seeming that you were sanctioning the heinous murder of innocent, sacred infants and toddlers.
So, in service to that objective, and confirming my original theory, these women organized and said they identified with Clancy’s emotional struggles and wished her to know she was not alone—remarks otherwise known as the “hard plastic crust,” often feet thick. This is how liberals invariably do it, go heavy on the compassion angle, displaying to the world that they, the humanists, are the compassionates who really care about people, who are always there for other human beings. Because “love wins” with them, of course—everywhere except in this Clancy case, obviously, where strangulation and death won. Anyway, liberals like the public credit and plaudits for this compassionism: Look what fine people we liberals are! Always there for our fellow humans, they say, as they smile and wink coyly for the camera during somber court proceedings involving three murdered kids.
This is liberals and Liberalism in a nutshell. Despite what they say, they don’t really care about anything or anybody. To serve their goals and ambitions, they just pretend they care. And because they care [smile, wink, demure shoulder punch] more, they are better than you, too. Made evident by all the colored cause ribbons they wear.
So then, one is clearly obliged to presume that these liberal empaths were/are exploiting Clancy, too, which became evident via a recurring and verbalized theme among them: “Clancy was failed by the healthcare system.” So, despite repeatedly seeking help from the American healthcare system, the system not only failed Clancy. It, not Clancy, is responsible for the murder of her three children.
And, paydirt!
Like I said, dig deep enough and exhibit some patience, and you will eventually unearth the real reason behind the things liberals are doing.
This is all about victimhood, the very foundation of the entire Liberalism model. In this case, liberals said: Let’s turn Clancy into a victim so people can’t criticize her or what she has done. So people won’t connect abortion and murder inside and outside the womb and have a legit means to criticize abortion, our cause supreme. Because abortion, after all, is the result of women being victimized by men—rape, incest, a patriarchal society. And yes, the whole society. So the victimhood strategy works, is in fact the go-to tool in the liberal toolbox. Here, in the Clancy case, women are victimized by the healthcare system, which is surely meant to imply men, too.
In any case, the question is: what were these doctors supposed to do?
Doctors aren’t God or exorcist priests. They simply “practice” medicine. A woman, like so many others, comes in having emotional difficulty with postpartum depression. Doctors treat her, as best as they know how and can, listening to her, giving her generally and widely prescribed medicines and treatments, meds and treatments that work for scores of other women, incidentally. Doctors are trying to determine what is wrong, are trying to help. Researching and developing, the healthcare system is trying to help, too—but these people aren’t miracle workers. They don’t have miraculous drugs to fix these emotional problems. They don’t have exorcist priests on staff to exorcise the depression demons from people, either. The healthcare system and its doctors are simply doing the best they can, which is pretty damn good, actually, given the impressive success rate, and the fact 99.999% of postpartum depressed women don’t strangle their f-ing children to death with exercise bands, too.
Am I the only one noticing that the healthcare system is actually remarkable and laudable?
Yet, in typical and true liberal fashion, here are these liberal women organizing themselves around victimhood status so they can point their finger and condemn doctors and the American healthcare system. Miserable and incurable malcontents, this is what liberals do. Hating everything, to include themselves, all they like to do is destroy things; it is their life-affirming ambition. If it isn’t masculinity and a patriarchal society and whiteness. Then is the nuclear family. If it isn’t the family, then it is the healthcare system and doctors. And once all that is destroyed, it will be something else. And once they have destroyed the something else, it will be the next thing. Liberalism is just a massive path of carnage and debris. Destroying the healthcare system, liberals will make healthcare so expensive that nobody can afford it. In fact, because of them everybody is suffering that costliness now and angry at the healthcare system.
Enter: Lindsay Clancy, the new Liberalism poster mother for finishing the system off.
So that is the synopsis of this Clancy ordeal, the paydirt. Perpetual victims, these liberal women are taking the opportunity to, depraved as it is, align themselves with a child-murdering mother so they can malign and hopefully destroy the American healthcare system, Liberalism’s long-pursued target-o-destruction.
There are two reasons people do things: a good reason, and the real reason. The good reason provides an explanation for others. Pay attention and people will tell you the real reason, as these liberal women conveyed directly. Victimized all the time, they are mad at something, at someone, and they cannot help but tell the world at what and at whom they are angry. They aim for people to know, dammit, and in this case it is the American healthcare system! Despite having the best healthcare in the world, which these women have all experienced, no less, and from which they and their families and friends have all benefited time and time again. They think healthcare would be better if their liberal political leaders were running it, instead of all these incompetent amateurs with all the medical and healthcare training, expertise, and experience.
Communist, single-payer, government-run healthcare—that is the drive behind all this, make no mistake.
It is no secret that liberals have been trying to establish communist healthcare—Hillary Clinton in the 90’s, Barrack Obama and Obamacare in 2010—and these Clancy empaths, who are either co-conspirators or useful idiots, are the latest effort in that Liberalism cause. So then, do this math: in a healthcare system successfully treating millions of women, women with postpartum depression and psychosis, specifically, not to mention every other female health condition. One woman murderously strangling her children is enough to condemn and destroy the entire healthcare industry? Is enough to turn healthcare over to the, uh, political medical pros?
Sure. Great idea. Totally reasonable, too. Gee, perhaps this postpartum psychosis, and maybe just regular psychosis, is more widespread among women than we think.
It really is this unsophisticated. Liberals are only happy when they are railing and tearing things down. They do it to themselves, and they want to do it to everything around them, too. They couldn’t care less about healthcare, or Lindsay Clancy, or anything else they are screeching about: racism, white privilege, toxic masculinity, women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, abortion, none of it. They are just using the issues and opportunity to purge all their misery and unhappiness, which they keep bottled up all the time because civilized society demands it. There is always something or someone to be angry at and to accuse, because liberals need the release. Meanwhile, they are destroying things that they and everyone else not only desperately need, but that are well proven and work laudably. Facts about which liberals couldn’t care less. In fact, when everything is left in ruins, they will be standing in the ruins screeching about the ruins. Nothing can be fixed, because liberals don’t want anything fixed. Fixing and construction aren’t their life-affirming mission.
So, when you hear people demand, “We want systemic change,” as these heart-handing liberal empaths proclaimed. Well, you should know that the liberal con is on—I say, as I lean on my shovel deep in the earth, the paydirt under my boots.
©JMW 8/2026
All Rights Reserved
John Mark Warren 