THE CLANCY CASE AND CHILDHOOD EXPENDABILITY

    As we mentioned in our last article, postmodern American attitudes towards children is deeply hypocritical---like most of our attitudes towards everything else. One of the commonest soundbites that political and social charlatans employ to promote their evil agendas is that their proposals are 'for the children,' or 'to keep our kids safe.' Such phrases work like magic charms on a population conditioned to accept them. The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite: the US is a brutal place for children to grow up in.  

    The US Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade stripped away the facade that the welfare of children has ever been the concern of the American Left---although their fanatical devotion to Abortion, the overt sadism of our public schools, the corruption of child welfare agencies, the tolerance of homosexual grooming and child trafficking should have given us a clue to their characters all along. Not that the Right has been less guilty: they well knew of all these things and went along with them. Since Roe was overturned, only about a dozen states have banned abortion, while about a dozen more have de facto legalized infanticide, allowing for the procedure up to the moment of birth. 

   Our last post featured a flagrant example of how little postmodern Americans really value children (and human life in general). The Whacko Left Wing is engaging a moral crusade on behalf of a drug-addicted pediatric nurse who murdered her own children by the exceptionally horrid method of ligature strangulation before unsuccessfully attempting suicide by jumping out a second-story window. Note that this was done while Hubby was 'running errands' so that he could come back and find the scene. 

   None of this seems to have made much of an impression upon Mr. Patrick Clancy; the grieving husband and father who seems to be among the forefront of those seeking to make a martyr of his spouse. Less than a week after the murders, Clancy wrote a statement published on a GoFundMe site initiated by one Matthew Glaser, a hospice administrator, from Wakefield, Massachusetts. The stated goal of this fundraiser---which has netted now close to $1.1 million thanks to the gullibility of about 16,000 chumps---is "intended to help Pat pay for medical bills, funeral services, and legal help." I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions about whose medical and legal bills are being paid.

   

     Clancy's statement has an element of detachment to it which, for lack of a better description, is just weird. There are two segments to his statement: the first is something of a reminiscence about his family, the second is a defense of his spouse. 

     He begins by saying that, "Thank you all for your love and support. The warmth I’ve received from the community is palpable and your generosity gives me hope that I can focus on some sort of healing. I’ve seen all of your messages and contributions, including some from people I haven’t seen in over a decade and many I’ve never met. I see and appreciate everyone of you...Any parent knows, it’s impossible to understand how much you will love your kids until you have them. The same goes for understanding the devastation of losing them."

     Honestly: does this sound like a normal reaction? To me, it reads like: "You know it really sucks when your kids get murdered by your spouse. Thanks to everyone who's donated, so I can focus on moving on now and getting on with life." 

    Clancy goes on from here to deliver some rather spiritless paens to his departed children. He focuses on their habits; but there's very little in these paragraphs which express much sense of empathy or feeling for what they must have suffered. There are a lot of superficial observations, but nothing that really comes across as if he experienced them as human. All of these passages remind me of the way that some people talk of the passing of the family dog. In fact, at the end of his tribute to the youngest (an 8-month old baby), he makes this astonishing observation: 

   "If I was ever having a bad day, Callan always knew how to heal me. Perhaps that’s why he held on a little longer - to spare me whatever pain he could. As excruciating as it was, I was fortunate and grateful to feel his warmth until his very last moment. Faith is my only hope of believing he felt mine.Callan died with enormous courage despite being so little. Maybe it was his way of demonstrating what I need to do to press forward. I’ll always try to draw inspiration from him. He’ll always be my little hero."

   We're not talking here about a son who died heroically in the line of duty as a grown man. We're talking here about a baby who was murdered in cold blood. He didn't "die with courage" and he didn't die slowly just to impress and inspire you, Mr. Clancy. 

   This is another glaring sentiment that appears throughout the entire essay: it's really all about him. How he feels, how he needs to 'move on', how the children affected him; how "they gave me purpose" etc. I get the distinct feeling that this was not a good husband, father, or is a good man in general. Like many postmodern familial relationships, the husband and wife seem to have viewed each other and their offspring as accessories to their own lives. That may go a long way to explaining why it ended as it did.

   Our suspicions about these attitudes are apparently supported by what he has to say about his spouse in the next segment: "Our marriage was wonderful and diametrically grew stronger as her condition rapidly worsened. {But apparently not so strong that, while he observed her deteriorating condition, he took any decisive action}. I took as much pride in being her husband as I did in being a father and felt persistently lucky to have her in my life." Again, it is all about him, and how he benefited from the relationship. 

   Clancy then goes on to slobber about his romantic feelings for his spouse, which in the context of the killing of his three children, is revolting in the extreme. There's no need to elaborate much on these anecdotes, other than the fact that Clancy devotes a significant portion of his essay to it shows again his narcissism and detachment from human empathy. 

   "I want to ask all of you that you find it deep within yourselves to forgive Lindsay, as I have." he continues, "The real Lindsay was generously loving and caring towards everyone - me, our kids, family, friends, and her patients. The very fibers of her soul are loving. All I wish for her now is that she can somehow find peace." I understand. I'm sure that when they weren't preying on young women, Dennis Rader  and Gary Ridgway were likeable sorts of fellows too; family men and active in their communities. 

   Contrary to what postmodern schools teach, good and evil are not relative things. People simply don't murder their own offspring because "the very fibers of their soul are loving." People do not become violent drug addicts because they are "generously loving and caring towards everyone." And people's lives don't end like hers because "nothing matched her intense love for our kids and dedication to being a mother." 

   In fact, reading through most of the anecdotes of Lindsay Clancy's character---including those from many from her supporters---there were indications that something was tellingly abnormal about her as well. In Patrick Clancy's own description of their relationship, she comes across as toxically co-dependent. Co-dependency isn't a bad thing by itself; in fact, it's a positive thing. But accounts of her as Patrick gives them indicates a constant need for reassurance, and a need to prove herself a good---if not superior---wife and mother. This is reflected too in the accounts from some of her supporters in the nursing profession. One gets the impression that she was going out of her way to prove (likely to herself) that she really loved children and her family. 

   Dead White Male and psychiatrist Alfred Adler once stated his belief that suicide always had an element of revenge as its motivation. I believe that what we see in the real Lindsay was a mixture of deeply repressed hatred for children, her job, her husband, and her marriage which finally exploded under the influence of narcotics in one final act to avenge her life on all of them. Granted, we would have to know more of her background to bear this thesis out, but the established patterns are certainly present. 

   Ending his statement as he began it---i.e. focusing totally on himself---Patrick Clancy concludes "I promise I’ll put all my energy into healing and rediscovering my purpose. I owe that to all of you, Duxbury fire and police, our compassionate healthcare workers, our local faith leaders, the Microsoft community, and especially Cora, Dawson, and Callan. I don’t know how or when I’ll be able to do it, but your love and generosity will help me get started. I know that love always wins." All his talk of 'love' and 'forgiveness' being Virtue-Signalling, of course. 

   Most Ameroboobs naturally aren't going to think about any of this. A search on Google for the case is overwhelmingly supportive of the accused, and are variously blaming things on faulty prescriptions (as if a nurse wouldn't know about their effects) or postpartum depression (which is very rare, and presumably a maternity nurse should have recognized the symptoms). And only since our last post three days ago, three more Bills have been introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature to make America Safe for Child-Killers. I suppose that's what we should expect from a State with a Lesbian Governor and one that funds abortion-on-demand up to six months. In postmodern America, selfishness and stupidity are always protected; the lives of children, not so much.