Speaker A
You know, first of all, this is the speech of an uneducated person. Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
An in-depth analysis of Lindsay Clancy's criminal case, exploring media, psychiatry, feminism, and societal impacts.
Key Takeaways
- Lindsay Clancy's case is multifaceted, involving mental health, media influence, and gender politics.
- Postpartum mental health issues are central but often misunderstood or politicized in public discourse.
- Media and social platforms have largely ignored or mishandled the case despite its significance.
- Legal and psychiatric evaluations play a critical role in shaping public opinion and trial outcomes.
- The case reflects broader societal tensions, including debates on feminism and the war of the sexes.
What the video covers
- The video analyzes the complex criminal case of Lindsay Clancy, a nurse and mother accused of killing her three children.
- It discusses Lindsay's background, education, and family life, highlighting her struggles with postpartum anxiety and depression.
- The video critiques media portrayal, conspiracy theories, and the role of psychiatry in the case.
- It examines the influence of feminism and the ongoing gender conflict in the context of the case.
- Details about Lindsay's education and professional qualifications are scrutinized, including her nursing training.
- The video touches on the legal proceedings, including defense strategies and courtroom conduct.
- It highlights the societal and political implications, including mental health policies and budget demands.
- The narrative explores the public and private reactions of Lindsay's husband, Patrick Clancy.
- The video warns about the broader consequences of the case on public perception of postpartum mental health.
- It encourages viewers to approach the topic with an unbiased mindset despite its controversial nature.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Overview of Lindsay Clancy Case
- 03:20Lindsay Clancy's Background and Education
- 06:20Family Life and Mental Health Struggles
- 10:10Legal Proceedings and Defense Analysis
- 13:20Media, Public Reaction, and Social Platforms
- 16:50Psychiatric Perspectives and Controversies
- 19:30Gender Politics and Feminism in Context
- 24:10Conclusions and Broader Societal Implications
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Hvorost is here with you. I'll say it right away, today's conversation is complex, but you’ve already figured that out from the clickbait title. We are going to break down a rather multifaceted topic today. We’ve got psychiatry, media technology,
Speaker A
conspiracy theories, and global plots. And most importantly, this is all against the backdrop of the criminal case of Lindsay Clancy, an American woman, mother, heroine, and newly minted icon of Western—not just feminism—who wiped out her three own children. The topic, of course, is
Speaker A
unpleasant. However, it is precisely thanks to it that we can uncover how media technologies work, throw in a couple of rants about feminism, and take a sidelong glance at the front of the main war of the 21st century: the
Speaker A
war of the sexes. Do you think I'm exaggerating or being dramatic? Not at all. On the contrary, I have to choose my words very carefully and delicately so as not to touch any sensitive chords of the video platform and bury this
Speaker A
video at the intro stage. Before we begin, first of all, this is my second time playing detective. I played it pretty well the first time, so I'm already a veteran. Secondly, please hit the like button, share the video if you
Speaker A
can, subscribe if you haven't already, and try to approach the information provided hereafter as unbiasedly as possible. Yes, I understand how unrealistic that scenario is, but what can you do, I still believe in people.
Speaker A
So let's start with the basics. Who is Lindsay Clancy? And before drawing far-reaching conclusions, let's take a quick look at the circumstances of her case.
Speaker A
Yes, I’ll allow myself, well, just, you know, 30 seconds or one minute for a little historical background, yes.
Speaker A
Lindsay Mary Clancy, née Musgrove, was born on August 11, 1990, to the Catholic couple Michael and Paula Musgrove in the town of Wallingford, Connecticut. Daddy was a school photographer, mommy was a fitness consultant for Weight Watchers, a company offering weight loss and diet
Speaker A
services. In short, just your typical middle-class white American family. Besides Lindsay, the family has another daughter, Allison Ozga, who works as a social worker. The sisters were very close from early childhood. Allison even became the first defense witness
Speaker A
during these court proceedings. Lindsay's childhood was uneventful. She went to school, did cheerleading, and from time to time visited the neighboring town of Putnam, where the All-Russian Fascist Organization of Anastasy Vonsiatsky was based in the 1930s.
Speaker A
What? What? What? Sir. Seriously? What? Alright, never mind. In 2008, she enrolled at Quinnipiac University, where she earned a bachelor's degree in biology. The university is known for being ranked 179th in the national university rankings. Ah, actually no, it’s not.
Speaker A
Oh well. Actually, the university is known for having a high-profile criminal case brought against it in 2014. A student expelled from university sued the school for 35,000 American dollars thanks to her depression. The girl didn't go to lectures, didn't pass exams, and didn't
Speaker A
do assignments, but she went to student parties every night. But they decided to expel her. However, 4 days before the expulsion order took effect, the girl went to a university psychologist, claiming she was in a state of depression. Well, that didn't help her.
Speaker A
She was expelled, and after the rightful expulsion, the girl filed a lawsuit, claiming the university violated her rights and didn't consider the mental health conditions of its students. Thanks to the efforts of Deirdre Daly, Lisa Perkins, and Nabina
Speaker A
Sinha—or Sinha, I don't know—who support the US Democratic Party, the court concluded that the poor girl with depression was expelled specifically for her depressive state. What can you say to that?
Speaker A
God? Bless America. No, seriously, just imagine: you can skip classes, not pass exams, have a great time at parties, and when problems arise—that is, when accountability kicks in—blame it all on depression, gain the full moral right to claim you were right and
Speaker A
innocent, and even get 35 grand out of it. Classy. Well, okay, that's just me —this is beside the point.
Speaker A
It doesn't relate, does it? Well, yeah, it doesn't matter. After Quinnipiac, Lindsay continued her education at the MGH Institute of Health Professions in Boston, which occupies the 2268th place in the ranking of American universities.
Speaker A
That’s where Lindsay received her nursing education. This is just a side note about what kind of "top" university Lindsay actually got her medical training from. Some very smart women, supporters of Lindsay, like to claim the following.
Speaker A
The carotid artery, meaning where it is located. And many are confused by the fact that Lindsay, being a professional nurse who studied at Quinnipiac University in 2012 with a bachelor's degree in biology, and then entered nursing school in Massachusetts, being
Speaker A
a professional and having worked as a nurse for years, for some reason was searching for the carotid artery. Well, I will explain this theory to the end.
Speaker A
This leads people to think that Patrick was the one searching for all this. Patrick made these search queries because he is not a professional, right, he doesn't work in this field, understands nothing about medicine, and he was preparing this way,
Speaker A
leading such arguments to the point that they were trying to frame Lindsay, well, basically, with the help of strange search queries like: "Where is the carotid artery?" Well, guys, the university is in 2268th place out of 5,000 or however many there are. So,
Speaker A
she really might not have known where the carotid artery is. Well, okay, it doesn't matter. Moving on. In 2016, Lindsay married Patrick Clancy. A boy from a Catholic family, a graduate of a Jesuit school for boys, who has about a
Speaker A
hundred brothers and sisters. The boy really loves yachting. Ocean yachting. This detail will be needed later. The couple had three children: Cora, Dawson, and Callan. All the children were baptized in the Catholic tradition. And in general, on the surface, everything
Speaker A
in the family was wonderful. Patrick sold corporate software, and Lindsay worked for 9 years as a Labor and Delivery nurse, that is, a nurse working directly with pregnant women and women in labor. In short, she worked as a midwife by our standards.
Speaker A
However, it cannot be said that giving birth came easily to the woman. As we learned from the case files, after the birth of the first child, Lindsay experienced some postpartum anxiety.
Speaker A
After the birth of the second, Dawson, she was diagnosed with significant anxiety. Though, there is, of course, a nuance here. The fact that Lindsay had problems after the birth of the first two children is known only from the
Speaker A
words of Patrick and Lindsay. There are no medical documents confirming this. But be that as it may, Lindsay was prescribed Zoloft. A relatively weak antipsychotic. Well, in '22, after the birth of Callan, the situation took a sharper turn. By the third month,
Speaker A
anxiety, insomnia, and depression set in, which forced Lindsay to see as many as seven psychiatrists, who prescribed her a total of 13 drugs. But don't rush to blame the pharmacological mafia yet.
Speaker A
I will explain why later. Well, basically, Patrick, Lindsay, and their three kids lived happily ever after.
Speaker A
Lindsay took pills, visited psychiatrists 20 times a month, and was getting ready to return to work soon, which, like any sane person, did not exactly make her happy. But now we approach January 24, 2023. A completely routine, unremarkable Tuesday, at least
Speaker A
at first glance. Patrick was again working from home in an office set up in the basement. Lindsay was taking care of the kids, watering, feeding, dressing them, and all that. In the first half of the day, Lindsay took the
Speaker A
eldest, Cora, to the pediatrician while Patrick watched the younger children. Upon returning, Lindsay dragged the kids outside to build a snowman, sing the nationa
Speaker A
relatively normal until 4:00 PM, when Lindsay started Googling restaurants near their home. She chose the furthest restaurant, having pre-planned the route and checked how long the trip there and back would take. After that, at 4:53 PM, Lindsay asked her husband
Speaker A
to drive to that eatery for dinner. Which Patrick did at 5:15 PM. He returned home, by the way, in just 45 minutes. But in those 45 minutes, life had changed drastically. Lindsay, using elastic exercise bands and raw physical
Speaker A
force, sent all three little ones to meet their maker, starting with the eldest. I won't go into the gritty details of this nightmare because, first, I don't really want to, and second, it’s disgusting, but just so you get the picture, yeah. After that,
Speaker A
she scratched her neck with her hands and decided to go for a walk out the window—production. At 6:05 PM, Patrick found Lindsay, found the children, and, being somewhat baffled by what had happened, called an ambulance. And this endless winter day
Speaker A
finally came to an end. However, the most interesting part is only just beginning. And the first interesting point is that the deliberate public outcry surrounding the Lindsay Clancy case is literally 100%a psyop. No, I'm serious. You probably think the carpet
Speaker A
bombing of news about this poor woman started in late summer of '26, when you actually saw it yourself. No, not at all. You have no idea to what extent.
Speaker A
In essence, the very next day after the tragedy, an unprecedented promotional campaign for the case began across the Western internet. Since January 25, 2023, headlines like "Shocking,""Horror .""White housewife eats her children." Flooded the pages of literally every American mass media outlet. Every new
Speaker A
detail of the criminal case, be it Lindsay's work references or the filing of charges, was immediately circulated, pushing aside all other news. The frequency of mentions of the Lindsay Clancy case in the media might make you seriously believe in some kind of
Speaker A
social significance of this crime and trial. If not for the whole world, then at least for its better half, for America. It's not for nothing that the topic is covered more intensely than the Super Bowl or an invasion bringing
Speaker A
democracy to Venezuela. No, seriously. There were at least nine times as many news stories about Lindsay Clancy in the Washington Post as there were about the kidnapping of Venezuelan boss Nicolás Maduro. Not bad, right?
Speaker A
So what? In other major print and online media, the situation is roughly the same. It is safe to say that the number of news reports on Lindsay Clancy in major American media alone exceeds 100,000.
Speaker A
So what? So what? Here's what. I can already hear you wanting to ask, "Well, Hvorost or Harvest, whatever you're called?""Doesn't this prove how significant this event is for the Mickey Mouses?" I could agree with you and not even make this video, were it
Speaker A
not for one thing. But no matter how much they shoved the Lindsay Clancy mush into Mickey Mouse's mouth, Mickey Mouse stubbornly refused to eat it for over three years. Despite the massive saturation of the infosphere, the topic was stubbornly ignored by everyone
Speaker A
except the expert psychiatrists investigating the case. This is eloquently proven by the frankly laughable, if not pathetic, views on all those thousands of reports from '23 , '24, '25, and right up until the autumn of '26 as well. The Clancy case
Speaker A
was not just followed less closely than you might think, given the tens of thousands of reports. No, reports about Clancy were watched even less than other material released at the same time. And this applies not only to traditional media; even on dedicated
Speaker A
True Crime channels, videos were not overhyped at all until September. Well, that's just, food for thought.
Speaker A
The Google Trends dynamics also point to a complete lack of audience engagement with the topic. Despite the hype constantly stoked by major media, over the last 3 years, even in the US —to say nothing of the rest of the
Speaker A
world—people searched for the Clancy case an average of zero times a day. And only from mid-July did the topic start to get searched at least somewhat . If you compare the search statistics with anything more well-known, the Clancy stats look downright ridiculous.
Speaker A
Like, Vladimir Putin was twice as interesting to Americans as poor Clancy . And that mediocre Game of Thrones spin-off, House of the Dragon, was searched 14 times more on average.
Speaker A
Another argument for the total artificiality of the buzz is the lack of any public interest expressed in the topic. And if near-zero views on reports and a lack of search queries are circumstantial evidence, then the lack of active engagement is quite
Speaker A
factual. However, how can one measure that? Well, it's actually quite simple. After all, what does a person do when they become interested in a topic? They trumpet that interest as loudly as they can. They tell relatives, friends, and
Speaker A
colleagues about it to enlighten them, or, if they are already aware, to chew over the topic. Anyone who interacts with other people on a regular basis will confirm this. And if we lived in a normal society, my research would have
Speaker A
hit a dead end. After all, I can't just hit the streets of American cities with a survey. But thank God, the revelations of John the Apostle are starting to come true. And today, the incredibly important opinions of grocery cashiers, seventh-graders, and
Speaker A
Soviet-minded folks on every issue are being poured not into the ears of their loved ones, but into the open internet.
Speaker A
In other words, let's take a look at TikTok. Today, there are thousands of TikToks about Casey Clancy, but they all share the fact that they were posted in August-September of this year . And the earliest TikTok that I could
Speaker A
find was by no means posted in '23, when TikTok had already captured the minds of hundreds of millions of Americans. Far from it: it was posted in February of '26. Well, and all the other videos were posted either in late
Speaker A
spring or at the end of the summer. And , of course, as soon as public interest in the case appeared, thousands of scavengers latched onto the topic, starting to churn out a dozen videos a day. How did it happen that The
Speaker A
Washington Post, The New York Times, and their ilk churned out 100,000 articles on the matter, but not a single TikTok creator paid it any attention? Well, fine, TikTok— that’s where the normies hang out.
Speaker A
But what about Reddit? On Reddit, you won't find a single popular topic on the subject created before the summer of 2026. All there is, is a post in a niche community from February 10th, 2023, with fewer than 350 upvotes and
Speaker A
200 comments. Meanwhile, the most popular post on the topic, created in early August, has 67,000 upvotes and 7,000 comments. And yes, that is genuine, authentic interest in the topic. And yes, it should have appeared back then, almost four years ago, but
Speaker A
it didn't. Not at all. Yet 100,000— just think about that—100,000 news reports somehow existed.
Speaker A
Paranoia, the ramblings of a madman. And now, to finally nail down the point , let's recall how mass media actually works, especially in the US, the land of triumphant capitalism. In short, they operate just like everything else in a market economy. Supply is formed
Speaker A
based on demand. And this, as a rule, happens spontaneously. Any media outlet , with rare exceptions, must work with specific mechanisms—view counts, read-through rates, search interest, social media activity, shares, comments , and mentions—to remain profitable.
Speaker A
That’s where they use info from TikTok and Reddit, for example. In general, that's how the media works. A little refresher on your ninth-grade social studies. So, let's think about this. If no one is engaged with the topic—no, seriously, 300 upvotes and
Speaker A
200 comments on Reddit. It's laughable. No public figures are speaking out about the topic. Reports and news on the subject are watched less than those that aren't. What’s more, nobody is even Googling the topic. Everything suggests there is no public demand for
Speaker A
this subject. And that’s understandable. This isn't exactly Epstein Island. Nothing out of the ordinary happened. Well, yes, it's a tragedy of sorts. Well, yes, it’s unpleasant, but normal people don't care. Then where does the supply of 100,000 news reports on the topic come
Speaker A
from? After all, these videos and news pieces were written, filmed, edited, produced, and posted by someone; and someone had to gather the material, travel to the courtroom, spend gas and time, and all that. In other words, man-hours of people with fixed salaries
Speaker A
were spent. These costs aren't recouped at all by views, comments, or citations . So, covering inherently uninteresting news for top media outlets is a serious waste of money. Well, here’s a brain-teaser for you, guys: do you think capitalist sharks really love
Speaker A
losing money? The answer, it seems to me, is obvious. It’s, like, yeah, it doesn’t matter .
Speaker A
By pushing an unsuccessful topic for two years, the heavyweight media were obviously paid well by someone. And the circle of suspects is actually extremely small, precisely because so few people have that kind of dough. But here, to narrow down the circle of
Speaker A
suspects, unfortunately—no matter how much it disgusts you and me—we have to figure out why and how the topic blew up in August. Well, in August, September. And it’s still blowing up even now. Yes. And we’ll have to work
Speaker A
through the key narratives of the topic itself too. After all, the Lindsay case hasn't been about infanticide for three years now.
Speaker A
That’s not a joke, that’s not a figure of speech. So what actually happened? Well, Lindsay did indeed strangle her three children with her own hands. That is a fact. She confessed to it herself many times, and ironclad evidence was
Speaker A
gathered against her. And the defense, by and large, doesn't deny the fact of the murder at all. The defense argues that, despite the murder, Lindsay should face no responsibility, as she was in a state of postpartum psychosis —an extremely rare, extremely severe
Speaker A
mental impairment where one loses touch with reality. The causes of this psychosis, as with any other disorder, are, of course, undefined. And they can't really be defined, because the psyche is a subjective reflection of objective reality within the
Speaker A
consciousness of a specific individual. And what is good for one man is death to another. I mean, in 99%of cases with identical conditions, everything will be fine, but in 1%of cases, it’s curtains. And psychiatrists, no matter how much they puff out their cheeks or
Speaker A
make soulful grimaces, don’t actually know why the hell that happens. Believe me, guys, I know what I’m talking about.
Speaker A
I have PTSD myself. And I started this channel at the insistence of my therapist to overcome a complex of derealization or unfulfillment.
Speaker A
Something like that, I don’t remember exactly. I’m saying this so you’ll show me some leniency. Well, that’s just poetic filler. So, what evidence is there that Lindsay really had psychosis? Well, there is no evidence.
Speaker A
All right, all right, there is some. Well, about one and a half pieces of it . To start with, there’s severe postpartum depression. The defense claims that Lindsay’s mental state had been slipping for a long, long time . And on January 24th, it just slipped
Speaker A
a little further. Like, Lindsay sought psychological help 17 times. She sought help repeatedly. She was literally begging for help, being, let me remind you, well, a mentally ill person. Yes, she managed to ask for this help in such a state, but
Speaker A
unfortunately, the system failed her very badly. However, there is a small problem here, actually two. Lindsay really did run around to psychiatrists for 4 months before the tragedy. And she broadcast it to the whole neighborhood. She told literally everyone: relatives,
Speaker A
neighbors, colleagues. Baristas in coffee shops and barbers in barbershops or salons, I don’t even know, taxi drivers and kindergarten teachers —the only ones who didn't know Lindsay was seeing psychiatrists were the psychiatrists themselves, whom Lindsay was consulting in parallel. Not
Speaker A
a single specialist knew about the half-dozen other colleagues who were working with her. That is precisely why Lindsay was prescribed as many as 13 different medications. But don't you worry, she took them strictly at her own discretion. Meaning she chose which
Speaker A
medications to take herself and experimented with the dosages herself. One of her psychiatrists, Rebecca Joutta, even explained in court that Lindsay did everything correctly. After all, the patient is sovereign. They possess full autonomy when making medical decisions. Why then can't the
Speaker A
patient independently bear responsibility for the problems that arise? Well, because of the inviolable rights of the individual. The second little problem with Lindsay’s psychiatric issues, pardon the tautology, is that she never once told anyone about her intentions to cosplay
Speaker A
the ancient Greek god Cronus. Again, not to family, not to neighbors, not to psychotherapists. Everyone to a person claims that Lindsay vehemently denied even a hypothetical desire to harm herself or her children. And the lion's share of Lindsay's anxieties was
Speaker A
related to the fact that she didn't want to return to work after maternity leave. Well, one can understand her; who wants to work anyway? It’s a drag . It’s a drag.
Speaker A
The second half of the argument regarding Lindsay's insanity is based on her claims about voices in her head.
Speaker A
The mother-heroine claims that she was pushed to commit the crime by voices, or scientifically speaking, command hallucinations. Well, it's like you're sitting at your computer, bothering no one, and suddenly you hear a voice that has no physical source, and it tells
Speaker A
you: "Give Hvorost money, like the video, pray for him in church." Something like that, in short. However, two forensic psychologists, Kirk Heilbrun and Gregory DeClue, do not believe Lindsay, pointing to the blatant, bordering-on-impossible atypicality of her hallucinations, because voices in the head are
Speaker A
relatively common, and this type of hallucination has certain traits noted in most cases. And the first snag is that Lindsay claims the voices only appeared on the day of the tragedy.
Speaker A
Neither before nor after were they there. Her psychiatrists confirm this as well. She never reported any voices.
Speaker A
And the second snag—the voice ordering all sorts of nasty things. Not only was the voice completely unknown to Lindsey, which is strange in itself, since in the vast majority of cases, people hear a voice they already know.
Speaker A
It might even be their own. Or a person might not remember who that voice actually belongs to. But an unfamiliar, gruff, commanding voice, like this one: " Come to me, you will get what you deserve." is almost never encountered
Speaker A
in real cases of command hallucinations . But that is fine. Lindsey also claims that the voice was only heard for 18 minutes and disappeared immediately after she had alternatively revived the third child. The third hitch. Lindsey made absolutely no attempt to fight the
Speaker A
voices in her head. She did not try to distract herself from them or try to suppress them in any way. And in light of this, Helbrum and Saathoff pointedly stated: "That does not happen. Voices do not appear once and then vanish. On
Speaker A
the contrary, before obeying voices in their heads, people literally stew in them without medication for weeks or even months. But here, the voice just appeared, and Lindsey began blindly following all the imaginary orders.
Speaker A
Also, clinical psychiatry has not described a single reliable case of voices disappearing immediately after a crime is committed. On the contrary, people hear voices before, during, and after a crime. And this, by the way, is accompanied by a physiological reaction
Speaker A
of the body to stress. That is, it can be recorded, more or less, by an increase in heart rate, a release of cortisol, an increase in blood pressure , and such things. But how convenient.
Speaker A
Over the subsequent 3 years of stress and worry, the voices for some reason never recurred for Lindsey. And the strangest thing: the dull, frantic obedience to the hallucinations. In her state of anxiety, Lindsey did not try to pray, listen to music, or just
Speaker A
scream to, let's say, drown out the voice. No, she blindly followed every order. This is atypical, unusual, and has never been reliably documented. So what can you say to that? Hello, electric chair. However, no, because we are talking about psychiatry, a
Speaker A
strictly philological, descriptive discipline where even key conclusions depend not on objective facts, but on the observer. That is, in psychiatry, everything hinges on the empirical experience of the psychiatrist, roughly speaking. Whether they see the markers based on which they previously made
Speaker A
diagnoses and guessed correctly, or whether they do not see these markers. That is why there were psychiatrists who found Clancy's accounts credible.
Speaker A
Paul Seibel, Phillip Resnick, and Donald Condie. And the latter, without ever having spoken to Clancy, found convincing arguments in favor of her having command hallucinations.
Speaker A
Attention. Uh, Lindsey had voices, but she didn't tell anyone about them because, uh, she was afraid her children would be taken away. After all , we live in a patriarchal society where life is hard and scary for women.
Speaker A
Yes, he said it with a straight face, despite the fact that Lindsay herself never once mentioned voices in her head or any fears associated with them.
Speaker A
Kondinaj is an absolute beast; even in court, he decides for the woman what was happening to her and why. Well, that’s just the science of psychiatry for you, folks. You have to understand that.
Speaker A
However, when you add in that Lindsay deliberately sent her husband on a specifically calculated, longest possible route, called him a minute and a half before the crime to see how far away he was, and decided for herself whether to take her pills or not. She
Speaker A
also constantly contradicts her own testimony and clearly staged an attempt at self-deletion. Oh yes, the attempt was clearly faked, as even the defense doesn't dispute the fact that all the scratches, except for one, were superficial and didn't even damage the
Speaker A
capillary vessels. The only thing is, Lindsay clearly miscalculated when she was cosplaying that famous meme." Well, folks, let's get the [ __ ] out of here. " And she injured her spine, which is why she supposedly can't walk. In short, if
Speaker A
you take all of this into account, the court's verdict would seem quite obvious, and the defense understood that perfectly well. And Lindsay is being defended by Kevin Reddington, a heavyweight lawyer with fifty years of experience. Back in 1989, he managed to
Speaker A
get Theresa Rogers off the hook after she iced her boyfriend. Reddington skillfully argued back then that Theresa was under pressure from the deceased, so she was justified in putting him in the ground. Thanks to Reddington, the term" battered woman
Speaker A
syndrome "even entered case law, which is still used today to get women who have killed their partners off the hook . So, who better than him could help our poor Lindsay? However, there is a snag here too. Reddington's average
Speaker A
price is $ 250,000 a year. And this fee , according to the lawyer, is paid to him by none other than Lindsay's mommy and daddy. A dusty fitness trainer, a consultant, a pensioner, and a school —God forgive me—photographer. One
Speaker A
might ask," Where's the money coming from? "But we are decent people, we don't ask such questions. After all, America is an earthly paradise where retirees who previously worked as basic maintenance staff can move to another state closer to their daughter, live in
Speaker A
hotels for years, and pay for expert testimonies and top lawyers. And this is not an isolated case; it's a trend.
Speaker A
In short, Reddington clearly didn't appear in the case for no reason. And he is likely being paid not by her mommy and daddy, but by the producers of this national American drama, which only a man of Reddington's stature
Speaker A
could pull off in a courtroom—who else but the man who threw shuriken? I’m not joking. Shuriken. Shu...
Speaker A
shuriken, what is that word? Only a man who threw shuriken in a courtroom could turn a criminal trial into a circus, because only a circus could help spin this obviously dead case. Americans love a circus in general. Today they
Speaker A
watch wrestling, tomorrow they watch the Lindsay Clancy court hearings. The difference is purely homeopathic. So, the real employers set two tasks for old Red. First: to get Clancy off the hook by any means necessary. After all, the trial needs the hype like air. And
Speaker A
what could stir up society more than freeing a child murderer from accountability? The second task is to blow up the fly of isolated, rare cases of psychosis into the elephant of a nationwide—or who knows, maybe even global—psychiatric pandemic. To the
Speaker A
old man's credit, he handled it perfectly. A solid A-plus. First off, Reddington flat-out ignored the rules of courtroom conduct. In case you didn't know, the American judicial process is strictly regulated. But Reddington never once called Clancy a defendant or his client, as the
Speaker A
regulations require. Instead, he always , every single time, drew out" This young lady. "And in his own words, this was necessary so that the jurors would under no circumstances form their attitude toward Clancy through the lens of the crime. Do you
Speaker A
realize the vileness of this? Secondly, old Red showed off some remarkable acting skills. For the entire trial, being an openly calculating person, he played the role of a caring daddy to poor Clancy. Again , spitting on court protocol, he danced
Speaker A
around her, stroked her innocent little hands, and paternally encouraged her along the lines of:" Come on, my little one, come on. "" Just a little more left. "" Just a little, just a little.
Speaker A
" And also, when the jurors were brought into the courtroom, Reddington would specifically stand behind her chair every time, placing his hands on the handles. Like, you know, he’s guiding the chair, acting as her support, her pillar, her protection. The symbolism
Speaker A
is read in the easiest way possible. The old fox Red knows perfectly well that the main audience for such circus shows is women. And not just any women, but ladies aged 20 to 40, harboring deep complexes regarding their
Speaker A
relationships with their fathers. That is why he played the kind, attentive, loving, and caring daddy with all his might. And, judging by these comments, it was absolutely not in vain. By the way, Reddington effectively killed two birds with one stone. He played to the
Speaker A
audience beautifully, earning widespread public love. And he managed to influence nine out of the twelve jurors. Interestingly, by the way, the panel was initially supposed to include six men and six women, but it just so happened that the final panel ended up
Speaker A
with only three men and nine women, eight of whom believed Clancy was innocent even before the trial began.
Speaker A
But more on that later. Thirdly, throughout the entire hearing, Reddington pushed slogans about the monstrous patriarchy and the lack of attention paid to women. As if to say:" Guys, why do such horrors happen? "" Because psychopaths were given the
Speaker A
right to choose which pills they take. "No, of course not. Are you kidding? Because in our—that is, American— society, absolutely nobody gives a damn about women. Nobody notices their problems, and nobody helps them. There is not a single organization dedicated
Speaker A
to protecting women's rights. Antidepressants for women are made out of breadcrumbs. Doc. He even ended his closing argument with the phrase:" Like , this state, this prosecution is a total mess. "Meaning Lindsay shouldn't be blamed under any circumstances,
Speaker A
because she is a victim. And what kind of state is this that blames the victim ?
Speaker A
I am a person who has been harmed by this system, by these people. I am a victim of this system. Fourthly, during jury deliberations, when it turned out that thanks to Reddington's efforts 11 out of 12 jurors were already ready to
Speaker A
acquit Lindsay, a rather weary Red started demanding that the judge remove the only person who was actually thinking. And when Reddington heard the pronoun" him "used in reference to the dissenting juror, Red started harping on about toxic masculinity, accused the
Speaker A
juror of stealing time from the others for some agenda, and a bit later even demanded that the sexist misogynist be prosecuted.
Speaker A
You have zero culture. Get out of here. Get her the hell out of here. Scum.
Speaker A
You’ve ruined the whole mood. And the other jurors, the same 11 who were ready to acquit Clancy, clicked their tongues, emphasizing that he, the only dissenter, couldn't detach himself from the crime. Yes, they blame him for that . Can you imagine the quality of the
Speaker A
human material in the other eleven jurors? Yes, they even stated that eight of them had considered Clancy innocent before the trial even began and managed to pressure the three doubters, but not Michael, the only Black man on the panel. By the way,
Speaker A
when Red found out Michael was Black, he softened his rhetoric about eighteen times and stopped calling him a misogynist and a criminal. It’s the political climate, guys, you have to understand. And fifth, the most important part. Mr. Reddington planted
Speaker A
some very important hooks, which was the whole reason for this circus, strictly speaking. More than a hundred times during the trial, Reddington emphasized that the fault for everything that happened lies not with Lindsay, but with the systemic lack of
Speaker A
attention, coverage, and funding for postpartum psychiatric issues. Basically, that was what the entire defense was built on. Women's health issues do not get enough attention.
Speaker A
When psychiatrists explained, for example, that not a single case of postpartum psychosis has been recorded in the eighth—God forgive me—month after birth, and 99%of all known cases occur within 12 weeks, Red made a blank face and said," Well, this young lady
Speaker A
had psychosis in her eighth month. "And if you didn't know about it, it's because of systemic oppression, the patriarchy, and executioner doctors. So , from the atypical nature of the eighth-month psychosis, Ready drew a conclusion and convinced not only the
Speaker A
jury but also millions of viewers that, you know, the issue is just not studied enough, and not enough money is allocated for it, damn it. And his client’s case is exactly typical, just the most typical case there is.
Speaker A
It’s just that the doctor-executioners are earning their keep for nothing, not studying women's problems. And what is characteristic is that this thesis was perfectly swallowed by the very same newspapers that had been spinning the Clancy case for three years. And what is that?
Speaker A
Idiotism, stupidity. But what if it isn’t stupidity? Parallel to the circus in the courtroom, a circus was set up in the media sphere by a team of skilled media technologists. At the very beginning of the trial, in mid-August, on Reddit, TikTok,
Speaker A
Instagram, and on all platforms, a collective push began for the theory that the children weren't actually killed by postpartum psychosis, and even less so by Lindsay Clancy, but by Patrick Clancy, the hubby. And despite Patrick’s literal hundred-percent alibi—like, he was caught on at least
Speaker A
a dozen surveillance cameras at the time of the crime. His mobile tracker and billing also confirm he wasn't home , and his car's dashcam recorded his entire trip to the 3V diner where Lindsay sent him, and the trip back was
Speaker A
recorded too. I mean, he literally physically couldn't have harmed the kids. However, when media technologists take on a case, such nuances definitely interest no one. Millions of women, consuming tons of true crime about calculating and elusive maniacs, switched on detective mode and,
Speaker A
drooling onto their keyboards, developed about a thousand conspiracy theories about how Patrick strangled the kids himself and framed Lindsay, and the level of delusion varies from mild. Like, Patrick fed his wife mushrooms, so she believes in her own
Speaker A
guilt, up to extremely severe. Like, Patrick called his friend who had plastic surgery to look identical to Patrick, sent him to create an alibi, while he did all the dirty work himself , framed Lindsay, and all just to dump
Speaker A
Lindsay and the kids and not pay them alimony. Well, pure nonsense. Harsh. But wait. Because I am not a combatant in the gender war, I will not paint Patrick as a white, fluffy kitten just because he is a man, like me. Patrick
Speaker A
is indeed a remarkable little man, and he intentionally acted demonstratively strange to draw additional attention to the case. So, Patrick is either an ordinary shill, which is unlikely, or a person on the payroll, which is most likely; nothing else can explain his
Speaker A
outrageous, demonstrative behavior. And what kind of behavior? You might ask me . Well, first of all, the very next day after the tragedy, Patrick called Robert Deehan, a priest from Holy Family Parish Catholic Church, and tearfully begged him to visit his poor
Speaker A
wife Lindsay in the hospital, where she was chilling out unconscious. The pastor arrived, sat with Lindsay, played some match-three games, and then proceeded to grant her an apostolic pardon. It is a highly interesting sacrament, which consists of the
Speaker A
absolution of a person's sins. It sounds roughly like this:" By the authority granted to me by the apostles , I bestow upon you full forgiveness of all your sins in the name of the Father , the Son, and the Holy Spirit. "Yes,
Speaker A
it's a" lite "version of an indulgence, a full absolution of sins granted to Catholic priests. Why did the priest grant absolution to a person who killed three children, two of whom the priest had personally baptized? That's a good
Speaker A
question, theological, I would even say . And in this context, it is particularly interesting that when one of the experts brought up the topic of Lindsay's Catholicism during the trial, the defense attorney, the prosecutor, and the judge all protested in unison,
Speaker A
like," Hush, hush, little one, put that back down. " He stood up and said he was demanding a mistrial. He requested a mistrial. The reason: intentional misconduct by the prosecution in connection with the mention of the Catholic faith and the
Speaker A
concept of mortal sin. Patrick himself, being a Jesuit, by the way, also prefers not to touch upon the topic of Lindsay’s apostolic pardon. Which one can understand, right? And secondly, why would Patrick even have any grievances against someone who absolved
Speaker A
the sins of his children's killer? Patrick himself has forgiven Lindsay and completely blames her for nothing.
Speaker A
You probably think, what a great guy Patrick is, right? He found the strength, four years later, to forgive his wife and let go of the tragedy.
Speaker A
Yeah. No, no. You didn't guess right. On January 27, 2023, Patrick launched a fundraiser for $ 100,000 for medical bills, funerals, and legal fees. Well, there were some money issues, right, and Patrick couldn't work, he was grieving, you
Speaker A
have to understand. On January 28, he was donated 900,000 American rubles, and he immediately published a long statement in which he dramatically described his own grief.
Speaker A
Sadness over the loss, the impossibility of forgetting and moving on. You see, it was as if Patrick’s life had come to an end. But most importantly, in the next paragraph, he forgave Lindsay and asked everyone else to forgive her, because Lindsay is a
Speaker A
loving mother and wife, a good person, a good nurse, and an A-plus cheerleader .
Speaker A
It would be a sin not to forgive someone like that, and besides, she isn't guilty. It was all just a mental lapse. Yes, literally on the third day after the tragedy. And no one forced him to make his attitude toward the
Speaker A
tragedy public. He decided for himself to say, well, Lindsay isn't to blame. Let it be, we'll get through it.
Speaker A
Nonsense. Well, it happens, but I have to say that this is not normal. I mean, like, it is completely atypical. And not a single similar case comes to mind .
Speaker A
I will tell you something scary. This boy earns my respect. However, in Shirley Murphy's study, 70% of 173 parents who lost children to violence needed 3-4 years. And not to forgive those responsible, but to fully comprehend and let go of the tragedy,
Speaker A
to find acceptance. And Angela Cuiña's 2011 study directly indicates that 68% of victims 'relatives are not at all capable of forgiving the killers. Yet here, a father who lost three children in 40 minutes, literally 3 days later calmly declares that he holds no anger
Speaker A
or resentment toward his wife and forgives her for everything. And in this very statement, Patrick emphasizes that mental disorders are to blame, not Lindsay. However, during the court hearings, he testified under oath over a dozen times that he had never seen
Speaker A
any symptoms of a breakdown before the tragedy, nor had anyone else. So why did Patrick, 3 days after the tragedy, decide that his wife had a mental breakdown? He hadn't even spoken to her once. How does it happen that for 6
Speaker A
years he saw no mental breakdowns or any problems in her at all? But after the murder, before the interrogations, before the findings, even before any version was proposed, Patrick suddenly realized she had a mental breakdown.
Speaker A
That is a good biological question, I would say. Well, all right. Especially interesting. This episode looks consistent with the fact that on January 20th of this year, Patrick filed his own civil lawsuit against the psychiatric organizations that monitored Lindsay before the tragedy.
Speaker A
Moreover, in the lawsuit, even though it is directed at three individuals and two organizations, Patrick specifically emphasizes that it is not specific people who are to blame, but a system that ignores women's mental health. And if more money had been invested in
Speaker A
women's psychiatric support, the tragedy would not have happened. Well, pooh-pooh-pooh, kids, what else can you say?
Speaker A
Do you, do you feel the subtlety of this? But besides that, Patrick invested the collected 900,000 quite well. Two or so weeks after the tragedy, he flew to Costa Rica to clear his head, where he went on excursions for which he left
Speaker A
glowing reviews. And at the same time, reviews for the exact same activities in Costa Rica were being left by a certain Rachel Dennis. Well, here she is, by the way. You will, of course, say:" Hvorost or Highquist, whatever
Speaker A
your name is? You just inserted a photo of Lindsay. "Oh, no, kids, this is indeed Rachel Dennis, Patrick's current wife, who, yes, is strikingly similar to his first wife. Rachel is from New York. And just imagine what a
Speaker A
mysterious coincidence. Three months after the tragedy, Patrick moved there too. He lived, however, not with Rachel , but with a New Yorker journalist, to whom he gave an interview a week later, where he once again forgave Lindsay and
Speaker A
drew attention to the importance of women's mental health. After that, Patrick landed a management position at Microsoft without an interview and gradually became an obscenely wealthy shill. And during the autumn trials, he said for the tenth time that Lindsay
Speaker A
wasn't to blame at all, but rather the medical field's blindness to female psychology. So, in the final analysis.
Speaker A
What have we learned? Patrick sent a priest to Lindsay, who granted her an indulgence. On the third day, he publicly forgave Lindsay, despite being a practicing Catholic and a Jesuit school graduate, yet he couldn't even manage a thirty-day mourning period for
Speaker A
his children; the poor guy couldn't even work, but he could enjoy himself in Costa Rica, where his future girlfriend from New York—where he moved 3 months after the tragedy—was also present. And 6 months later, their first photo together appeared. Well,
Speaker A
what can you say to that? A sailor. A sailor, a fan of yachting. If you know, you know. So yes, Mr. Clancy really did provide some grounds for outrage. The latest HTRacon turned out to be really not that great. What? Fine, sorry.
Speaker A
Anyway, everything mentioned earlier in no way legitimizes the thousands of accusations that poured down on Patrick . And there are some oddities with these accusations as well. The foundation for the conspiracy nonsense was fed to the respected" fem-detectives "in strictly measured
Speaker A
portions. All the photos, screenshots of reviews, camera footage with changing shoes, and so on, came literally from nowhere. Patrick’s shoes on the camera footage from the CVS pharmacy and the 3V restaurant.
Speaker A
Some wrote about how his footwear looks different, right? Meaning in one video it looks like sneakers, and in the other, it looks like boots.
Speaker A
There is not a single primary source in the public domain, like with data leaks , and there are no authors either. The materials were uploaded to Reddit from one-day anonymous accounts. It’s like some kind of folk art, yes, American
Speaker A
folklore that has no authors, that is, no primary sources. However, we are smart, guys, and we know that if a widely circulated version suddenly emerges from the void without a primary source, then this version was created artificially. The Mirotorg case from
Speaker A
the beginning of this year confirms this. Yes, in our case, all the conspiracy theories were used as a source of additional traffic, meaning, attention to the case. And if we perform the heroic feat of summarizing this whole sea of filth, the main"
Speaker A
noospheric "complaint against Patrick is that he is a" man-pig, "and therefore a priori guilty. And this applies to both Western and domestic audiences. And what kind of audience is this? As you might have guessed, it is women between 20 and 40 years old in 90
Speaker A
%of cases. And let's consider, what are modern women interested in? Well, in this age range, true crime and feminism —or rather, the fight for women's rights—overlap. And, in general, they specifically tailored it to the wishes of the target audience. The abundance
Speaker A
of idiotic moments and strange quirks in the case perfectly fosters the creation of conspiracy theories and versions of events of varying degrees of absurdity. And the speculative emphasis on the perpetrator's gender and the fixation on the problems of
Speaker A
women's—not general, but specifically female—mental health attracts gigatons of crusaders for simple female happiness to the case, even if that happiness is built on children's bones.
Speaker A
And by the beginning of the trial, they brought in feminist organizations to promote the topic, organizations that had practically ignored the case for three years. Ignored it until they were told to act. But even then, everything started spinning. In favor of Lindsay
Speaker A
Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and the defense psychiatrists. The National Organization for Women, and I think you understand how influential this organization is, released a statement," Don't Criminalize Women's Health, " where they emphasize for the hundredth time the failure of a healthcare system
Speaker A
that does not care enough about women. And the ladies, or rather their speechwriters, specifically emphasized that if a couple of billion more had been allocated for women's mental health, the kids would still be alive.
Speaker A
And now remember Patrick's lawsuit, where he writes practically word for word the same thing. Uh-huh. But you have already understood what is actually going on and who is pulling the strings. But that's not all. Andrea Clark, a representative of Postpartum
Speaker A
Support International—an organization that helps with family planning, postpartum care, and so on—went further. And, in principle, she explained that motherhood is always anguish, a nightmare, and horror. And a happy mother is just patriarchal propaganda. Giving birth to children is
Speaker A
hard, and if you can, it’s better not to have them at all. So, a woman whose livelihood is protecting motherhood specifically emphasizes that motherhood is bad. Well, that is yes, it’s not just the pharma company shills parasitizing on the topic, but
Speaker A
also besides this, the clients scurried about and brought a couple of truckloads of extras to the courthouse, who were eventually joined by concerned representatives of the electoral caste.
Speaker A
Those ladies in pink t-shirts. You’ve definitely seen them; they were brought in precisely to create a media event.
Speaker A
That’s why, for example, this mother was shaking her toddler on camera. Which, obviously, was causing him serious discomfort. And what’s interesting is that no trace of this woman could be found. Even though there is clearly rough and dismissive
Speaker A
treatment of the little kid, or whatever. A kid, in short. And it was also impossible to find any discussion where sympathetic moms were arranging to picket outside the courthouse. Meaning a crowd of women in identical merch with identical signs
Speaker A
appeared all by themselves. Nobody discussed anything beforehand and nobody arranged anything in advance. Materialized out of thin air, self-generated in the primordial soup of gender wars. Yeah. No, but did you think they tell you the universe just popped into existence, literally from
Speaker A
nothing, so you wouldn't wonder where a politically charged mob in identical outfits suddenly appeared outside a courtroom? Well okay, joke or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the extras’ behavior was deliberately provocative, meant to attract not just
Speaker A
sympathetic fools, but also super-smart reactionaries who spread the word worldwide. Women have gone mad, look, just look. After all, anger and indignation sell content every bit as well as empathy and compassion. And at about this point, you and I found out
Speaker A
about the case. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the millions of bucks spent to promote the case have finally paid off. And note, it didn't pay off thanks to traditional media churning out 100,000 paid reports, but thanks to TikTok and the supposed accidental
Speaker A
shift of the conflict into a gender-war dimension. Well, bad news for traditional media. And now let’s turn to a sociology expert to finally understand who promoted the Lindsay Clancy case and why—well, or rather, to dot all the i's. Tell me, why was
Speaker A
all this done? Well, for heaven's sake, the birth rate is still too high and Big Pharma has too little money.
Speaker A
So, you mean that the Clancy case will be used to secure additional funding for psychiatric support for mothers?
Speaker A
Well, not just mothers, but children, cats, dogs, and sailors too. It’s not for nothing that Patrick pushed it so hard.
Speaker A
What exactly do you mean? That people have to work, and psychiatrists are people too. And they work as long as the insurance money lasts. The more Lindsay Clancys there are, the more money for psychiatric mumbo-jumbo.
Speaker A
And Lindsay, do you think she’s guilty or did she really suffer from psychosis? That’s completely irrelevant. You see , once you put the creature on skis, it just keeps on sliding. It slid to an acquittal once, and it will do it again
Speaker A
. You have to understand how it works. Lindsay is a star now. Patrick is working for Bill Gates. Big Pharma is gobbling up new contracts. Everyone is happy, everyone is content.
Speaker A
All in all, yes, we effectively have two results from the case's promotion. First. Postpartum psychosis, or any postpartum mental changes, are now perceived as a nationwide American problem. Currently, several hundred American and global organizations have already launched initiatives to
Speaker A
increase funding for postpartum disorder issues. Thousands of people spend hours seriously discussing the nuances of these disorders, giving the issue far too much importance. And millions are eating it up. And yes, postpartum problems are serious. They certainly need to be studied, but they
Speaker A
are already being studied right now. The problem is receiving exactly as much attention as it deserves. After all, postpartum psychosis occurs in no more than one in a thousand births. And a 2024 systematic review estimates that in 4%of cases, harm is caused to
Speaker A
oneself or the child during postpartum psychosis. That is, the public danger is 4%of 0.1%per thousand births.
Speaker A
Essentially, the probability of catching psychosis and repeating Clancy's feats is about the same as dying in a plane crash, which is about 45 times less than the chance of dying in a car accident. In other words, the risk to society is vanishingly small,
Speaker A
but for some reason, this fact is systematically omitted. Why is that? Why? I'll tell you.
Speaker A
Well, because in the US, a simply monstrous situation has developed in the sphere of psychiatric care. For about 15 years, psychiatric diagnosis in the US has been a tool for extracting money from gullible citizens , something BuzzFeed did a pretty good
Speaker A
investigation on back in 2016. Although , why am I even mentioning 2016? Good Lord. Back in 2000, South Park brilliantly played this out in the episode" Timmy 2000, "where, albeit in a hypertrophied way, the hysteria surrounding psychological problems in
Speaker A
America is shown extremely truthfully. All over the country. You, you freaks, you doctors, give the children the damn drug. And for every one child who actually needs it, there are 50,000 who don't.
Speaker A
Pharmacological companies, in principle , work in tandem with psychotherapists, so they prescribe certain drugs for almost any psychological problem.
Speaker A
Remember the 13 drugs for Clancy? But that is how an ordinary psychotherapist works in the US. They simply bury the patient in kilograms of medication, the effectiveness of which, in principle, is questionable. And according to internal reports of the American
Speaker A
Psychiatric Association, such patients already account for about 33%of the US population. Literally every third person has been to a psychotherapist one way or another. And as is clear from the Murzilki story, essentially the case was spun to lobby for
Speaker A
increased funding for the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries. That is, they want to turn 33%of the population into 40-45%, which will recoup any costs for spinning the case in just a couple of months. And the first fruits can be tasted today.
Speaker A
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, from the Democratic Party, has already announced a new project in the field of psychiatry. Every woman who has just given birth will be assigned a psychiatric worker who will assess for 8-12 weeks whether the woman needs
Speaker A
psychiatric help. And the largest public organizations related to psychiatry are collectively demanding an increased budget for studying and managing postpartum depression and things like that. So a couple of billion will clearly be earmarked in the budget for the next fiscal year.
Speaker A
Well, business is business. Man, my voice is already giving out. Well, let's make one last push. The second result is the continued systematic stigmatization of motherhood and childbirth. This, honestly, needs a separate video. And I will make one,
Speaker A
but for now, that's all. Let's just say that purveyors of anti-human rhetoric have already started speculating on the Clancy topic, literally extrapolating her experience to all women in labor?
Speaker A
Something along the lines of:" Why do you want to give birth, little one? You might end up with postpartum psychosis.
Speaker A
What, do you want to end up like Lindsay Clancy? "Want to ask who benefits from this? Well, it's actually quite simple. It is So, why did I even make this video anyway? I mean, what does America have to do with little old
Speaker A
me? Well, firstly, I wanted to thank my dear Telegram chatters who tossed me a few coins for tea and sugar. So, this material is literally commissioned. Yep . So, we thank Grandpa Nurgle, Anonymous Dmitry, dear brother Mansur 08, dear brother Topinambur, the young
Speaker A
man with the nickname Hate, god, hatehlakeist, Vit Shardanye and na primane (whatever that means), Dimka Svistun, Nikolai Miloserdov, yet another anonymous person, Vasilisa Pupkina, from whose lips the truth speaks, and, of course, one more anonymous person. If it weren't for
Speaker A
these guys, this video literally wouldn't exist. So jump into Telegram, join the community of respectable people LARPing as Caesar's Legion, and tell these folks:" Gratitude is open. " And secondly, the Clancy case is interesting because if it hits big and
Speaker A
brings dividends to the Mickey Mouse creators, then in a couple of years, something similar will start being pushed in Russia. Because by some mysterious coincidence, despite the declared confrontation between Russia and the West, the socio-political processes, especially regarding the
Speaker A
destruction of the traditional family, are completely identical here and there . Sometimes it even seems that these processes were launched by the very same people. Wait, what if it's The key consequence of the case will, one way or another, be the further
Speaker A
stigmatization of childbirth. And in modern society, terabytes of blatant myths and lies are already being circulated—that is, exaggerations of childbirth and postpartum physiological problems. I mean, just the conviction that childbirth is the most intense pain a person can feel, measured in
Speaker A
some" units, "is worth something, right ? And now they've started blowing a psychological fly up to the size of an elephant. If before, the anti-natalist propagandists only leaned on the social and physical hardships associated with childbearing, well, I predict. Now they
Speaker A
will start pushing psychological problems, too. It's not for nothing that they were handed a whole case like this. Even if it wasn't originally hyped for that purpose, we'll talk about that more deeply next time, and we'll see. Well, that's all for today.
Speaker A
Subscribe to the channel, leave likes, drop into my Telegram, don't adopt group identities, don't fall for scams, and don't walk through alleyways alone late at night. And remember old man Hvorost with a kind word at pagan shrines, and in Orthodox churches,
Speaker A
light a candle for health. Well, you can also toss me a coin for some tea with honey so my voice wheezes a bit less, but that's not required. In any case, thank you for your attention.
Speaker A
Stay in touch. Come on now, little one, hush, hush, it’ll be alright. Five. Five. Verses give birth to verses in me . Short, long blades on my belt. A frequent thought. Five elements give birth to verses in me. Short, long
Speaker A
blades on my belt. Frequent thoughts. a different defeat means
Topics:Lindsay Clancypostpartum depressioncriminal case analysismedia technologypsychiatryfeminismgender warmental healthcourtroomAmerican family
