OBJECTIFICATION AND POLITICALLY-CORRECT MURDER

        'Objectification' is one of those essentially meaningless terms that's thrown around in American discourse. It's a neologism from the root verb 'to objectify', which has both a positive and negative meaning. In its positive sense, it is a literary term describing prose or poetry that expresses an abstract notion into a concrete form. The New Testament has many examples of this: for example, describing Christ as a Good Shepherd; not that Jesus literally tends sheep, but that His care for His followers is like that. 

     In postmodern usage, the term typically has its negative aspect: which is reducing a person to the status of an object. The term is most often used as a Shaming Tactic against heterosexual men who dare to find a female attractive. The reason that it is a meaningless term is because our hypocritical culture essentially objectifies everybody. Workers are human capital. Unborn babies are clumps of cells. Immigrants are hordes of invaders. For single people, we're lectured endlessly about sexual market value; people in relationships are told to evaluate its cost/benefit balance; even posting something on Social Media is known as a status update. People are told to have children on the basis of the economic value or deficit to a family: this is laughably called family planning. Children and the young are calculated in schools as enrollment figures (with price tags attached) and the elderly relegated to the same statistical analysis. Just about every aspect of this stupidly dysfunctional society is premised on treating others as objects and getting out of it what we can for our own benefit.

    Our Culture is vociferous in its desire to protect the children; which of course means in reality that children are the most objectified, exploited, and preyed upon segment of our society. The High Priests of Scientism do not even consider a human life to exist until the magic moment of birth; and don't consider legal adulthood to occur until the magic moment of one's 18th birthday. Between Conception and 18 years, a child or legal minor has no rights that society need respect. 

   For anyone who has been following much of pop culture lately, a new legal Cause Celebre has emerged among the Whacko Left Wing, in the State of Massachusetts. A 32-year old nurse and prescription drug addict named Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children---two toddlers and an infant---then decided to crown all of her evil deeds with suicide by jumping out a window. Unfortunately, the attempt was unsuccessful, though the killer remains hospitalized. 

   The crackpots on the Left have been running with this story: not the way the Media usually does by milking a sensational crime story for every dime they can wring out of advertisers. Instead, they seem to be bent on exonerating the suspect with the kind of zeal most often reserved for criminal scum shot by police in self-defense. Leading the charge are Clancy's fellow-nurses, you remember our Frontline Heroes of the Scamdemic;

   ...along with the usual batch of radical Academics, mercenary trial lawyers, and the bereaved husband Patrick Clancy who seems to have set a new and incredibly low bar for the masochistic postmodern American male to aspire. His GoFundMe page--which has topped $1,000,000 as of this writing---contains a statement from him that has to be read to be believed. At some point, we may do a further analysis of the statement because it really deserves a separate commentary. Not to be outdone, some degenerate in the Massachusetts State Legislature is already proposing a Bill which would exonerate future child-killers who belatedly changed their minds and decided on a postpartum abortion. 

   Letters have been flooding into the Defense Team in support of Lindsay Clancy, mostly portraying her in a version of the gentle giant meme we see every time a thug is shot by police in a prominently minority neighborhood. And the vermin in the Corporate Media naturally is playing along with the narrative:

   "Regardless, those who wrote letters of support said it was clear Clancy did not get the help she needed." NBC opined, "Stacey Kabat, who said Clancy shadowed her when she was a nursing student, wrote that she and her family members 'were betrayed by an inadequate medical system that has not devoted enough resources nor time learning how to help our new mothers. Please know that if our Lindsay had proper treatment this family would still be together. Please know that she deserves no further punishment.'”

    Like most of these kinds of defenses, we see two distinct (1) no concern for the victim(s) involved and (2) no sense of responsibility on behalf of the perpetrator, who is always a victim of the system.

   Without getting too graphic, I should point out that an actual dead body that has been strangled looks a lot different that what is shown on TV crime dramas, or even cleaned-up post-mortem autopsy photos released by the police. All I suppose that should be said is that once you see a victim of ligature strangulation 'as found' there's no doubt that they died in abject terror and intense pain. Death can take up to 15-20 minutes depending on the age and health of the victim. In this case, we're talking about preschool aged victims. Children at that age have an imperfect sense of reason and are still governed by their instincts; and the instincts of all higher animals at that stage is to run to their mother when they sense danger. Do we need describe the level of terror these children must have died in? 

   Ken Reddington, the Clancys' defense attorney argues that “Our society fails miserably in treating women with postpartum depression, or even postpartum psychosis. It’s medicate, medicate, medicate. Throw the pills at you, and then see how it works. If it doesn’t work, increase the dose or decrease the dose, then end up trying another combination of medications.”  There is truth to this, but it is no justification nor even a defense in this case. Our Legal System---correctly---has an insanity defense but this defense is premised on the Defendant's actual inability to distinguish right from wrong. Contrary to Media propaganda, only about 10% of cases where insanity is raised as a defense are successful, and certainly voluntary drug abuse is no defense.

    "A mental disease or disorder constituting legal insanity does not include 'disorders that result from acute voluntary intoxication or withdrawal from alcohol or drugs, character defects, psychosexual disorders or impulse control disorders.' It also does not include 'momentary, temporary conditions arising from the pressure of the circumstances, moral decadence, depravity or passion growing out of anger, jealousy, revenge, hatred, or other motives in a person who does not suffer from a mental disease.'"

    The truly troubling thing to note here is that this the second time in two weeks, we've seen a murder trial where the projected outcome seems to be based in wholly political motives. Unlike the Clancy Case, that particular case has become a Cause Celebre on the political Right. While our society has been trending in this direction for the last few years, the interjection of an amoral populist partisanship into legal proceedings is an acceleration of an already dangerous trend. True, we've had actual show-trials (i.e. Derrick Chauvin, Ghislaine Maxwell, Julian Assange) which were actually politically motivated convictions and the trial was only a farce; and the Jan 6th Hearings and the Rittenhouse Case which were also politically-motivated but the legal circumstances are hazier. 

  In the two cases profiled here, however, we have two very clear-cut cases of deliberate murder (at least according to the accusations) where the public is demanding exoneration on the grounds that the killings serve a higher political or social purpose. In other words, the lives of the victims are held of less value than the social statement made by their deaths. This is a complete perversion of why our legal system was organized on the principles that it was. In the case of a homicide, the State intervenes and acts as prosecutor on behalf of the slain, who cannot defend themselves, and the accused has a right to argue why the killing was justified, or why they are otherwise innocent. 

  It hardly needs explaining why such cases being tried by Public Opinion based on Political Expediency is a terrible prospect. Ultimately, such a policy results in the utter dehumanizing of the victim. The proposed Massachusetts Bill "would create a path for defendants who gave birth within a year before their crime and are diagnosed with perinatal psychiatric complications to be found not guilty by reason of mental illness. The bill, which applies to all criminal cases, also incorporates the definitions of postpartum psychosis and postpartum depression into state statute." 

  And what of the babies literally murdered? "Oh well...they were just a zygote a few months before anyway. Who cares? Babies are a burden on the economy; and this Bill will create revenue for Big Pharma!" And likewise the case of the migrant who was gunned down by an anti-immigrant fanatic we see the same responses: "Who cares? He was just some illegal immigrant sneaking across our border---probably stealing an American job or getting on the welfare roll anyway!"

   Americans at this point really need to stop and take a hard look at their values. If we've really reached a state where human life has no intrinsic worth and actual homicide can be excused on grounds of public benefit, then there is very little hope that we're going to survive as a Constitutional Republic.