Episode 982: Women Wronged—By Women's Rights
Air Date: September 16, 2026 | Host: Bob Metz
Just Right — broadcasting on WBCQ and Channel 292 shortwave
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this program are those of the participants.
Clip (Don't Bother to Knock, 1952):
Nell Forbes: This isn't your room. You go back in there and go to sleep.
Bunny Jones: I won't. I won't.
Nell Forbes: Stop talking like that. You're not supposed to be in here. You're to go to bed. Little girls aren't to be up at this hour of the night.
Bunny Jones: You can't make me do anything. You're only supposed to be minding me.
Nell Forbes: You're frightened. It's silly. It's wicked to come between people. Do you have a doll at home?
Bunny Jones: Yes. Josephine.
Nell Forbes: What if it cried and pestered and spied on you? You'd want to get rid of it, wouldn't you? You'd have to. You turn over and go to sleep. Don't utter one sound. Then we'll all live happily ever after.
Hello? Yes, Mrs. Jones. Bunny's asleep.
Ruth Jones: That's good. What's that noise I hear?
Nell Forbes: It's a fire engine down the street.
Ruth Jones: I don't hear it in the lobby.
Nell Forbes: Well, but we're on the other side of the building.
Ruth Jones: Oh. Oh, yes, I guess that's it.
Nell Forbes: You go ahead. Have a good time.
Ruth Jones: We are.
Nell Forbes: Goodbye.
Bob Metz:
Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, September 16, 2026. I'm Bob Metz, and this is Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that's not right wing. It's Just Right.
Our chilling opener today offers a terrifying parallel to events reported in the Lindsay Clancy trial with the murderous child killer depicted by of all people, Marilyn Monroe, in one of her earliest performances on the movie screen. In the 1952 American psychological thriller, Don't Bother to Knock, Monroe plays a mentally ill woman named Nellie Forbes who finds herself in the position of babysitting a young girl named Bunny at a hotel function where the child's parents are attending a banquet elsewhere in the building.
As the plot develops, we discover that Nellie is determined to create a perfect opportunity to kill Bunny. Why? For the very same reasons we've heard raised during and after the Clancy trial, and we'll be connecting those particular dots between fact and fiction later in our show today. But one disturbing parallel I couldn't resist mentioning now relates to the issue of how people are questioning that Lindsay Clancy, claiming some form of mental distress or illness, could have handled a telephone call to her husband so calmly and rationally while in the middle of the process of murdering her children.
But that's pretty much the very scenario we heard in our show opener today. Nellie is telling the parents that their daughter is safe and well while we hear the child screaming in the background. Fortunately for Bunny, help arrived in time as her rescuers found her gagged, tied up and bound on a bed. And as the police take Nellie into custody on her way to a mental institution, we hear other characters in the movie comment that, well, she really didn't want to harm the child and otherwise imply that Nellie was not responsible for her actions. Does any of this sound vaguely familiar?
There's a lot more to this issue in controversy than meets the eye. And what's missing from the conversation is a theme very familiar to this show. I've been doing everything possible to avoid having to discuss the morbid and repulsive crime committed by Lindsay Clancy. And for a while I thought I might get away with it. But the flood of post-trial reactions and commentaries about everything from the nature of Clancy's crime to the great divide between men and women to the nature of individual justice itself has prompted me to attempt to address a question that all of the commentators I've heard so far have been asking, but not able to answer. So I'll give it my best shot.
Right after our reminder that you can write us at feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on Channel 292 Shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform, and visit us at justrightmedia.org, where you can access all of our social media links, archive broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show. Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.
Now, in order to set the context of today's discussion, and to provide us with all of the basic evidence and information necessary to rationally frame and discuss this highly emotional and sensitive issue, I thought we should begin immediately with our first audio bite that does exactly that in a very informative and entertaining way.
On her September 2nd YouTube presentation, which was recorded before the hung jury result was known, Shoe On Head offered an excellent summary of the big picture view of the whole Clancy controversy, while expressing her anger and outrage as only she can do.
Clip (Shoe0nHead, September 2, 2026):
Enough about women's rights. It is time to talk about women's wrongs. If you're a man dating a woman, ask her about the Lindsay Clancy trial. And if she says she feels bad for her, or even worse, the husband did it, run.
Yes, the women are rising up to defend Lindsay Clancy, a woman who brutally took out her own three children. Lindsay admitted she did it. Her lawyers admitted she did it. All evidence lines up and proves she did it. The current trial debate was not about if she did it or not. The current trial is about whether she will be thrown in prison for murder or thrown in a loony bin for being crazy.
This video is less about the case itself and more about the discourse surrounding it. The insane theories people are coming up with to defend this woman, the bizarre fan fiction they are writing about her husband, how they have donated over one million dollars for her. Now, not all women are defending Lindsay Clancy, obviously, but nearly all of the people defending her, like 99.99% of the people defending her, are women.
So what exactly is going on here? Why are thousands of women supporting this woman who has done a terrible, horrible thing? These people are crazy, these people are freaks. Let's talk about it.
If you are not familiar with this trial or what is going on, here is a quick rundown. In January 2023, Lindsay Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse and mother of three, murdered her three children. Five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan. On the evening of January 24th, Lindsay Clancy purposely sent her husband Patrick Clancy out on a long errand. She told him to pick up medication at CVS and pick up food from a restaurant far away. And while he was gone, she took each of her children one by one down to the basement and strangled them to death with exercise ropes. She then tried to take the coward's way out by jumping out a two-story window, and she's now paralyzed in a wheelchair.
The defense argues that Lindsay was suffering from postpartum psychosis, and that she wasn't receiving the help she needed. But as it stands right now and as it stood for years, it is universally accepted that Lindsay Clancy killed her children. The trial was about if Lindsay was going to prison or the loony bin. Nobody in the court is arguing that Lindsay Clancy is innocent. Not even her own lawyer. Nobody. Well, nobody, except thousands and thousands of women on TikTok.
Lindsay Clancy didn't do it.
Patrick Clancy did that. He drugged Lindsay.
He did it. Just he did it. Like, read everything, look at everything. Don't hate women.
Believe all women. I killed my kids.
No, you didn't. For some reason, every woman and her mother has convinced herself that actually Lindsay's husband, Patrick, is the real perpetrator of this crime. Despite there being absolutely no proof of this anywhere whatsoever. Lindsay Clancy is innocent. The husband did it. I said what I said. New theory. He killed the kids. His was the voice she heard. He threw her out the window. She's about to be jailed for life for something her husband did. He was having an affair. He plotted. He drugged her. I think the voices she was hearing was him. Her surviving wasn't part of his plan. I think he was already having an affair. He killed his kids and attempted to kill her. Then blamed her for what he actually did. I think he did it while she was in severe psychosis and convinced her she did it. I have the strangest feeling that he was having an affair with one of her doctors. I just can't prove it.
Yeah, yeah, none of that shit they said is true. None of it. Not a single thing they said is based in reality.
This all happened years ago. They investigated the husband and found nothing. But you see, the dozens of professionals working on this case, the detectives, the FBI, the cops, the lawyers, are nothing compared to the mind of the TikTok female. They can see through it all. Evidence be damned. The husband did it, and they can prove it with intuition and vibes and star racism.
And what is your date of birth? June 15th, 1988.
He did it. You know, just following all their birth charts and birthdays and zodiac signs. He did it.
I've already gone over the forensic astrology charts that show that the perpetrator is a male.
I'm telling you all right now, when the South Node goes into Cancer in March of 2028, the South Node is going to transit over Patrick Clancy's moon in Cancer.
I learned that the lawyer in this Clancy trial is an Aquarius.
This is the most Saturn thing I have seen in a long time.
The most Saturn thing you have seen in a long time. What does that mean? By the way, that nose ring looks like shit. Sorry. Sorry. Was that Uranus of me to say?
I think the voices Lindsay Clancy was hearing in her head were her husband's thoughts. Women when they are postpartum are more psychically intuitive and telepathic.
Women have intuition. So many of us are standing behind Lindsay because we know she didn't do it. As women, we know what he did. We see it. Women know. We all know. It's Patrick Clancy versus the women of America at this point, lol. Like, why hasn't he been arrested yet? Oh my god. Because the law isn't based on emotions and TikTok girlies' gut feelings, but rather uses evidence, testimonies, digital footprints, and most important confessions to determine guilt.
Women have intuition. Men do not.
Women have all this magical intuition until it comes to finding a good man, and then all their exes are abusive narcissists. Weird how that works out.
Something is off. Something seems off about him. Yeah, his wife murdered his children.
That's what's off, you fucking freaks. The 911 call was so horrific, so traumatizing that they didn't want it released to the public.
I don't believe Patrick did anything for Lindsay. I think Lindsay did it all herself. I don't think he was a good father. I don't think he was a good husband.
I think, I think. Who the fuck are you? Who cares what you think? Did you know this man personally? No, you didn't. How about instead of trauma dumping on the internet, you go to therapy?
Alright, he did it. Patrick did it. Patrick's the one who did it. I was actually in therapy today, and my therapist and I were talking about it, and just she looks at me and she goes, he did it.
Oh god, never mind. Maybe therapy is not a good idea. These yes-men ChatGPT-ass therapists, just enabling and feeding the delusion of these narcissistic idiots.
You know what a real therapist would say? You know what a real good therapist would say? Log off.
Every one of us that have roots that go back to the Salem witch trials. We are freeing our ancestral bloodline by coming together for Lindsay Clancy.
Were the Salem witch trials really that bad?
Y'all are pissing me off. You're pissing me off about this Lindsay Clancy fucking case.
We're the ones that are trying to figure out who actually did this to these fucking poor-ass innocent children.
What do you mean you're the ones trying to figure out who did it? They know who did it. You are not the people actually working on the case. They know that, right? They know they're not actually working on the case, right?
We literally binge watch true crime as a hobby. We've been trained for this moment. This case has me feeling like I'm on Law and Order with all you guys. Coffee for those of us working hard on this case.
We deserve coffee and bonus pay. Oh god, they really think they're working on this case.
You are not detectives. You are bored housewives who replaced daytime soap operas with TikTok. Again, I can't stress this enough. The trial is not about who did it.
TikTokers are posting reenactment videos of them hanging out the window to prove that Lindsay Clancy is innocent.
You know, I'm starting to believe it's no coincidence that every civilization all over the world, even when they didn't have any contact with each other, all came to the same conclusion about women. Also, why didn't Trump go through with the banning TikTok thing? We would be in a much better place right now. Whatever happened with that. China doesn't even let people consume slop like this.
Imagine being this guy. Imagine going through what he has been through. And now you have to deal with retards on TikTok and TMZ stalking you as if you were some kind of pop star.
Also, this happened three years ago. But I guess he's just never allowed to move on and live a normal life. He probably misses being a dad. He probably misses having children. He probably misses having a normal, stable life. I don't know how this dude is still functioning. I would have gone full Shutter Island, personally. And it's not like he just moved on and forgot about them. He built a park in their honor. He raised over 75,000 for Boston's Children's Hospital. Also, Patrick and his sisters helped create the Herd Foundation, which is an organization that focuses on parental mental health.
That is way more than these fucking idiots supporting Lindsay ever did. They could have donated to charities or some shit, but no. They create a GoFundMe for Lindsay's family.
I donated 800, and I'm a single mom who lives off ramen.
I donated $5,000. If we don't be her voice and get loud and fight for her justice until Patrick is in prison for the rest of his life, then we will have failed as a nation. And if this can happen to her, it can happen to any of us.
As I am filming this, they have raised over 1 million dollars for Lindsay. And I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that every single donation is from a woman. I'm not joking, you can go check yourself. You will be scrolling for a long-ass time. I scrolled for like 10 minutes and didn't see one male name.
Finally, women are the protectors and providers. Protecting a murderer and providing her with one million dollars. But that's not all, it gets worse. These women planned and organized real-life rallies outside of the courthouse for Lindsay.
Thank you. Thank you!
They were waving at her, passing in the car like she was the fucking president of the United States.
They were lining up and giddily taking photos with Lindsay's lawyer, like he was some kind of celebrity, taking selfies in front of the triple homicide court case.
What the fuck. A lot of these women probably see this as nothing more than some bizarre form of super late-term post-birth abortion.
No matter what you think of abortion, you gotta admit going from safe, legal, rare to shout your abortion, just celebrating it and completely normalizing it as if it's another form of birth control, probably had some bad side effects on society. I don't know, I'm just throwing out theories because I have no theory of mind for this. This is just insane to me.
This idea that Lindsay Clancy was left hanging with no support and no help is absolutely not true. Lindsay had more help than most women in worse situations than her. Her husband took paternity leave so he can be home and help her more. He took the kids when she needed a break, her parents were there to take the kids when she needed a break, she had nannies, she had nannies. She had a ton of doctors trying to help her, she checked into a mental facility and voluntarily checked herself out days later.
Dr. Gregory Sathoff testified that a Women and Infants Hospital offered Lindsay Clancy help and she denied it. Help was offered to her, and she denied it. What more could have been done besides involuntarily sending her to a loony bin, which I support. I wish that was possible to do, but these women would not support that either. They would say it was denying her freedom and agency and whatever.
So what the fuck do they want? Mental illness in general is not even an excuse. Many people who murder are mentally ill. Probably most of them are mentally ill. Oh, the woman who murdered her three children was mentally ill. Whoa, this changes everything. I thought she was an upstanding normal citizen. No shit.
You've learned a lot more about Lindsay Clancy's husband as this trial has played out and women are clocking every tidbit.
We've learned a lot more about Lindsay Clancy's husband. No, you haven't! You watched some TikToks by Pitbull Mama 78, who told you about Lindsay Clancy's husband with her tarot cards and intuition and stupid shit. Shut the fuck up.
What the hell is going on with women? They've developed pattern recognition and can clock a problematic man from a mile away. Cope more.
This woman used to be some right-wing libertarian podcaster, by the way. What the fuck is going on? What is really interesting about this and what sets it apart from other things I've covered is this is not political at all. These aren't activists. This is completely apolitical to a lot of the women.
Literally, the woman who started the first rally for Lindsay Clancy is a TPUSA, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh fan. It's not just liberal women, it's overwhelmingly liberal women, but it's not just liberal women, which is what makes it a unique and extra creepy phenomenon.
I know a lot of Republicans don't want to hear this, but the right is on the verge of making the same mistake with young women that the left did with young men. I know some of these women are fun to mock, and I get it, and I do it too, but we have to do better if we want to bring them over to our side. If we totally alienate young women, we will not win elections. We have to find a way to appeal to them.
What should the right be doing to win over Lindsay Clancy supporters? What? Why would you even want them anyway? I don't understand.
My mother thinks Lindsay's guilty. She's MAGA, of course. I'm MAGA and think Lindsay is innocent. MAGA women do not support women's rights. They do not support Lindsay in any real meaningful way.
Oh my god, dude, they're having a crazy competition in the comments.
I support the baby murderer more. No, I support the baby murderer more. Ladies, ladies, calm down. You are both losing your voting rights.
Bob Metz:
That was a great presentation by Shoe on Head, with which I have only one minor dispute. Minor relative to her broader observations, but major in terms of my own take on all of this. She says that what distinguishes this from other issues is that this is not political at all. These are not activists. This is completely apolitical to a lot of women.
Yet everything else about her monologue clearly suggests otherwise. For example, that the right is on the verge of making the same mistake with young women that the left did with young men, trying to win over Lindsay Clancy supporters. What she's doing is making the classic error of equating the right and left philosophical polarities with Republican and Democratic voters and parties. Remember, these are the very parties we've been calling the Uniparty for years now, and the uni ideology that unites them is leftist. Right and left are only about ideas and ways of thinking, whereas political parties are formed to pursue interests, whether principled or otherwise.
Believe all women, she notes. Hashtag Me Too, anyone?
Clip (Shoe0nHead, September 2, 2026):
Women are remembering that believing another woman is the start to changing the world.
Bob Metz:
This has been a leftist feminist mantra, an ideology, if you will, that we have spotlighted on this show in extraordinary detail, particularly with regard to the Bill Cosby false rape accusations, and conviction, which I remain convinced to this day was an incredible injustice. And as the case we made on this contended, Cosby was targeted by a specific band of feminist activists, all named and identified, because he was expressing conservative views in public. And in terms of everything from women's rights to abortion to the status of women with the threat of losing their voting rights, etc., etc., I can't see any of this as being other than political.
One thing's for sure, these women supporting Clancy have certainly given every one cause for reconsidering women's relative status to men, something we'll be hearing Carl Benjamin seriously confront in a few moments. It must be made clear though that there's no such thing as women's rights any more than there is such a thing as men's rights. In a free society, where all individuals are responsible and accountable for their own actions, the only valid concept in a rights context is individual rights.
Only individuals are capable of exercising moral choices. There's no such thing as group rights, since every group is a fictionalized abstraction defined by some fictional adjective. For example, consumer rights, workers' rights, farmers' rights, tenants' rights, transgender rights, majority rights, minority rights, gay rights, children's rights, and on and on and on. And in every case where the term rights is being used attached to a group identity, it means interests and not rights.
And of course, acting in your own specific interest is perfectly okay, but interests must be pursued through the legitimate exercise of individual rights, which demands that the principle of consent be the political ideal. And again, only individuals are capable of exercising consent.
I can't help but recall that one of my long-running political feminist foes was a local London group calling itself the London Status of Women's Action Group, with its stress being on elevating the status of women above and beyond the rights which they already possessed. For feminists, this status is really about acquiring rights without responsibilities by making taxpayers and governments responsible for these rights. For example, on the abortion front, there's a big difference between having a right to freedom of choice in abortion versus having a right to free abortions. The first places the sole responsibility of those exercising the choice to have an abortion to pay for it, versus the idea of having a right to free abortions paid for by others who may regard abortion to be murder. So where is their free choice in this whole matter?
And not only is the idea of granting status to women a contradiction in terms, but ultimately it works not to elevate the status of women but to lower it, because those ascribed with status are ultimately dependent upon others to maintain that status. This is why it's perfectly proper to ascribe status to animals and children, because they're incapable of understanding or assuming direct responsibility or being held morally accountable for their actions. Whatever freedom of action they may exercise within a human setting is determined by some adult individual who is responsible for their health and well-being. For example, animals are assigned various status, such as wildlife, livestock, domesticated, pets, etc., while children are ascribed a human status, which in the natural course of life would allow them to slowly accrue rights as they demonstrate the exercise of personal responsibility for their actions.
Now, in most Western cultures, they reach what is called the age of consent or the age of majority, under statutory law at some time between 16 and twenty-one years of age, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific legal rights in question. So before I offer my own theory, responding to the question posed by Shoe on Head, namely, what the hell is going on with these women? Let's first hear from Carl Benjamin tackling that same mystery with regard to the female jurors and what they're saying in public in his following September 10 podcast recorded after the hung jury was announced.
Clip (Sargon of Akkad, September 10, 2026):
Carl Benjamin: Like a lot of people, I've been really shocked at the interviews that have been done with the jurors of the Lindsay Clancy trial, and this is really making me rethink what a jury trial even means in the age of not only social media, but the apparent radical divergence in thought and moral standards and considerations of personal agency.
If it is acceptable for a woman to be having a moment and murder her children, then she can't be held accountable for anything. Why would we want to put a woman in a position of power and authority or give her even control over her own life if she can never be held accountable for anything? And yet the argument these women are making has a necessary corollary, that is women cannot be given responsibility.
Unknown Speaker: ...not trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did. And she's admitting that. We're trying to figure out, did she know right from wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved her children so much, and everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children. So she had to have snapped and not known what she was doing.
To me, that it was proof that she didn't know what she was doing.
Carl Benjamin: I wouldn't accept this kind of excuse from a man, just to be clear. But for some reason, these women on the jury have decided nope. If something happened to her that made her have a 20-minute moment in which she lucidly takes a phone call or phones Patrick Clancy when he's at the shop because she has in premeditated fashion gotten him out of the house for a sufficient period of time, I wouldn't accept that as an excuse, even if she was losing her mind or something for this period of time. I don't care.
Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney was a guy called Kevin Reddington, and he made basically the same argument, and it was just the most baffling thing to listen to. I just cannot understand how we can even be countenancing such arguments, let alone how they've become so persuasive.
And if we were to accept that, well, what does that even mean for things like criminal justice and accountability? What you are assuming here is the deterministic philosophical interpretation of a human being. This has been a long-running debate for a long time, with no clear end in sight. Do human beings have free will or not.
If we accept that essentially no one is really responsible for anything that they do, the entire point, the entire concept of the criminal justice system crumbles under the weight of its own philosophic incoherence.
Justice as an ideal disappears from human life.
Unknown Speaker: Trials are always hard, but this one was particularly hard. I want to start with you, Kelly, and just ask basically what's one takeaway that you have from serving on the Lindsay Clancy trial.
Juror: The takeaway that I have is for more mental awareness for women, men, children, and anybody with a beating heart. I believe in the jury system. I believe that Lindsay was wronged by the medical system, and I hope this changes things in this country for women and all people, really.
Unknown Speaker: Ronnie,
Juror Ronnie: There's not enough research on postpartum depression or psychosis. Hopefully this can bring about some change. I wish we could have come through for Lindsay. I feel very sad that we couldn't, but hopefully, if we can make any change at all, that would be worth it.
Unknown Speaker: Paula, how about you? What's a takeaway for you?
Juror Paula: I want to follow the two of them. I think the biggest thing that kept coming back to me was how many times she asked for help and how many times no one would help her because she said she didn't have a plan. And what is that really even mean? I don't have a plan that I know exactly what I'm gonna do, but I know that I want to do something. I'm asking my family, my friends, the medical community that is supposed to help me, and no one could seem to do that. It was the decline was really clear. There was a big juxtaposition between how well their family was doing and how fast it went downhill. And it was very difficult to separate wanting justice for the children from the evidence that we were presented with. And it made us all, everybody in the room, really think about mental illness and how it is presented.
Carl Benjamin: Notice that bit at the end. We separated justice for the children with treating Lindsay Clancy as the victim of what has happened here. And I just can't take it. It just goes completely counter to my conception of justice, my conception of human agency, and what I think people who have responsibilities have to answer for if they do things that are wrong.
I don't think women are just at the mercy of the universe and have no agency of their own. I think when they use their agency to do something this horrific, actually they should be held accountable as if they were a man.
These female jurors seem to have just been very emotionally invested in Lindsay Clancy herself as a projection of themselves onto her, and therefore they seem to have been swayed by emotional appeals made by Reddington. It's such a weird thing watching how they basically come out and say, Yeah, I was kind of manipulated by Reddington.
Unknown Juror: Just his whole demeanor was funny. And there was one time, whatever he said, I don't know, but I went because he was entertaining, which was good because we needed some of that and arrogant at the same time.
Yes.
Like arrogant and entertaining. He would go back and forth between that.
Yeah.
Like compassionate. Yes, through his, with his arrogance, I know. His compassion towards Lindsay was amazing.
Carl Benjamin: Notice how this is not about what actually happened. This is not about Lindsay planning the murder of her children and then executing it according to her own plan. This is about how Reddington made them feel. I don't think this is how justice is supposed to work. I don't think this is what juries were meant to be for. Juries were meant to be for the discovery and decision on did someone commit the crime. And they began from the point, well, yeah, we know she killed her. And they began from the point of yes, we agree that she murdered her children, but we have an excuse for her. And I'm sorry, I don't accept there is an excuse good enough.
If we both agree that she murdered her children, I would not agree to acquit her either. And this is why I feel so much sympathy for that one lone male juror who held out. He's the one person I think should actually have actually been on that jury. Honestly, good for him for holding out on this because again, I can't get past the fact that she murdered her children. Everyone in this room agrees she murdered her children, and I'm completely on his side on this. She murdered her children. And the thing is, these female jurors were shocked that for some reason he couldn't move past that point.
And on the subject of TikTokers, there are loads of women on TikTok who convinced Patrick Clancy did it. They have an insane conspiracy theory that has been brought out of literally nothing that he is in fact the person who murdered the children, and she, of course, is the victim. Now, this is not true. No one involved in the trial thinks this is true. But this is what they think.
Unknown Speaker: I think Patrick Clancy did it, and here's how I think it has happened because I have not seen anybody share this perspective.
Unknown Speaker: So listen, I'm just gonna say it like this. She did not do it. Pat had all the motive to do so.
Unknown Speaker: How is he going to sue everybody for defamation of character on this app? We're entitled to our own opinions. Freedom of speech.
Unknown Speaker: Patrick did it for sure.
Unknown Speaker: Patrick did.
Unknown Speaker: 100%. Oh. That man didn't— Let me tell you hypothetically why I think Patrick may be the one who's guilty for these questions.
Unknown Speaker: But he did it. He had the motive in his mind. He had a story right on time.
Unknown Speaker: He did it. He did it! He framed and built an alibi. He had the motive in his mind. He had a story right on time. He did it. He did it! He did it.
Carl Benjamin: That compilation I found floating around the internet, and I could have gone on for another minute and a half. It just—insufferable. Absolutely insufferable. Poor man.
Again, we didn't get to hear the 911 call where he phoned up and he's screaming that she killed the kids. But everyone agrees this is one of the worst things you've ever heard. In fact, this is what the defense attorney himself said on this subject. You fucking psychos.
Bob Metz:
You're listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online.
And you know, I find it unbelievably stunning that such openly blatant libel and slander should be permitted on any public forum anywhere. As the one woman commented, is he going to sue everybody for defamation of character on this app? We're entitled to our own opinions, freedom of speech.
Well, libel and slander do not constitute freedom of speech, other than in the sense that once someone has exercised their freedom of speech to commit this crime, they can be held accountable for their actions and statements. So I say yes to suing these people. He should sue everyone for this criminal action. If a psychotic murderer can raise a million dollars online, surely there are enough people willing to do the same for an innocent person and in the name of justice.
But the questions have been asked. What the hell is going on with these women, or calling them fucking psychos, of necessity? This calls into question the source of how these women think, and why they think the things that they do. This is a question that we've answered with regard to the political concepts of left and right many times on the show, in an attempt to explain the outrageous irrationality and violent tendencies of those on the left.
Most fundamentally, those who are found on the left mentally operate on what is called the primacy of consciousness. Those on the right on the primacy of existence.
The primacy of consciousness refers to the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness.
The primacy of existence is the axiom that existence exists, that the universe exists independent of consciousness, that things are what they are, and that they possess a specific nature and identity.
These are universal philosophical principles that apply to all human thought. And most importantly, as Ayn Rand emphasized, this crucial distinction is not given to man automatically. It has to be learned. Or in other words, the process of maturing one's faculty of thinking from the undisciplined primacy of consciousness to the highly disciplined primacy of existence is in fact the broader process of maturity itself.
The epistemological corollary of the primacy of consciousness is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward. And without realizing it, both Shoe on Head and Carl Benjamin explicitly described this very process.
Says Shoe on Head, "not a single thing they said is based in reality. Everything is, I think, I think." Yes, exactly. Completely detached from existence and completely inwardly focused.
Meanwhile, Carl Benjamin cites the TikTokers who have concocted, quote, this insane conspiracy theory brought out of literally nothing, end quote, which is precisely the consequence of thinking that results from a primacy of consciousness. They just made it up by looking inward to themselves as a source of their knowledge.
In contrast, the primacy of existence operates on the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists, and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward into that reality. And again, as Rand explains, the source of people's refusal to think objectively is the inability or unwillingness to fully grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world.
And if indeed this refusal to think objectively is caused by an inability to do so, we are either dealing with an immature child or an adult who is seriously mentally compromised, which brings us back to the Lindsay Clancy horror story. Observed Carl Benjamin, these female jurors were emotionally invested in Clancy as a projection of themselves, and for them, this was not about what actually happened, but about how the women were made to feel. Or in other words, they too, these women on the jury were operating on the primacy of consciousness, inwardly directed and concerned only with their own emotional condition.
And by the way, the phenomenon of those who operate on a primacy of consciousness is not something exclusive to women. Although, with respect to the Lindsay Clancy case, that's something that was argued between Steven Crowder and his guest, Jillian Michaels, on Crowder's September 9th podcast.
We'll be hearing a part of that discussion on this side of the upcoming bumper, while on the return side, from the September 10 Newsmax editorial commentary, Carl Higbie arrived at his judgment that the women on the jury are just as insane as the woman on trial.
Clip (Steven Crowder, September 9, 2026):
Steven Crowder: Jillian Michaels on X or on YouTube, please welcome back Jillian Michaels. Were you shocked to see this with Lindsay Clancy?
Jillian Michaels: I was stunned. But the one thing I will say is the vast majority of women I know were also stunned.
Steven Crowder: When it comes to women and feminism, whether it's overt or covert, it's far too many. In most cases, it's most. And in this case, it's close to half.
Like we got to do.
Jillian Michaels: How do you think it's close to half? That's the one thing that I can't reconcile. Because I'm looking at this more through a lens of far-left progressive woke ideology, the same idea, and I'm not saying women don't lean into that. I know that they do.
Steven Crowder: Right. Minority of men support transitioning children, majority of women. That's the problem. So we have a problem with half the country. If men were the ones choosing, even in women's sports leagues, biological men wouldn't compete. And by the way, this is across the racial divide, too. You would not see transitioning of minors. The only reason that those policies exist. Sure, there are some men, but as a majority of women. Minority of men, majority of women.
Jillian Michaels: Okay, so here's my question, because we could be here all day dividing women into slices. I feel like we should arguably look at what the main goal is. Because for me, it looks like this. You talk all the time about the dangers of Marxism. And you even said to me, this is a Marxist agenda. That's what's happening here. And we're seeing that play out black against white, gay against straight, and it's tearing the fabric of our society apart. And I think it's on purpose.
So if that's the goal, and men and women stop falling in love, and men and women stop trusting each other, and men and women stop having kids, that's a catastrophe. And I know you and I agree on that. So my question to you is how do we prevent that from happening? Because I feel like that is absolutely the goal, and I'm here to be a part of the solution.
Steven Crowder: So you say if they tear each other apart. The reason that it's been torn apart is not because of the dividing from those orchestrating it or the response. Women have torn it apart. And what I mean by that is every four years, you look at the top political issues. I'm sure we can grab that chart we had on another show. Women come out. And there are some, but even with the conservative women who vote. In other words, just looking at the voting demographic. The number one issue for women at large is the ability to kill their babies. For men, it's the economy. For men, it's immigration. This is every four years and everything else is being held hostage.
And you look at custody laws and you look at immigration laws, and you look at the gender LGBTQ. This has all been spearheaded by women. Men have been told no vagina, no opinion, although now it's, you know, you can have one if it's the right kind of cock, depending on how you identify, I guess. It fails, right? It falls under its own weight.
And it's interesting that you bring up Marxism. You can do it with the Bolshevik Revolution. You can look at Maoist China. You can even look at what happened in a lot of other smaller nations. This is a big thing. They've often ginned up women. This is why Orwell talked about it and said, hey, we're going to give you equality, which was ultimately used to subvert, ultimately used to force men to submit. You need to get rid of strong men who act as the safeguard against this. And I certainly would say we've eliminated that safeguard when we have women walking free just because of their uterus, killing their children. I certainly would say that when we have men and women's sports. I certainly would say that when we've just changed the definition of murder.
By the way, you relate more to a man right now watching this in horror because most women, not all, most women are not watching in horror. They're not stunned. But you are, you're an outlier.
Jillian Michaels: Steven, I don't think that's true. I could show you so many videos of women on the web being horrified. I just this is the part where I worry about these generalizations. I can't find any, there's been no official polling to try to refute this. But I just don't think it's most women.
I think it is a radical faction of lunatics that has been specifically targeted, but they target roughly 13% of middle-aged, largely white women, because they can move the voter pool on some of these issues, and it does work, but I just don't think it's most. That's the only area where I'm going to disagree with you.
Steven Crowder: But it is most.
Jillian Michaels: Why do you think that? Why? You got all the conservative women that aren't there. That's half of us.
Steven Crowder: Because of the data that's available to us. Yes, you will find some, but you are an outlier. You are an exception. I'm not just talking about Lindsay Clancy. Okay, would we say you say lunatics? Would we say it's pretty pretty much lunacy to demand taxpayer subsidized abortion up to and including nine months? That seems crazy to me. Majority of women.
Jillian Michaels: Is it the majority of women, even conservative women who don't even believe in abortion?
Steven Crowder: Well, not majority of conservative women. Majority of women because it's all liberals.
Jillian Michaels: I'm deeply upset about it.
Steven Crowder: Because it's all liberals. It's all liberals, and then it's still far too many conservative women relenting. In other words, the conservative women, you'll see this a lot, even though I'm against it, I still think a woman has a right to choose. And even though I'm against it, it's the doctor's fault, and it absolves the women of accountability. The men go, no, wait a second. That's an eight-month-old baby. It's the 21st century, you know better. That's a crime, you should be punished for it.
Jillian Michaels: Well, okay, but the right to choose is different than late-term abortion, abortion without limits, or taxpayer-funded abortion.
Steven Crowder: I do think that we need to separate outliers and exceptions from the rule. And I do think that right now the divide is happening because men are seeing women behave just the way they behave publicly.
Now, you would say not all, but men are saying far too much.
Jillian Michaels: That's fair.
Steven Crowder: And I would agree with them.
Jillian Michaels: That's fair.
Steven Crowder: I think that men going, oh, wait a second. If she even says a maybe with Lindsay Clancy, they're ending their engagement, they're stopping the relationship because ultimately they want to have kids.
Jillian Michaels: I think they should.
But then this brings me to the following position of all right, I will grant you far too many. I don't know how many. I don't think it's most. But having said that, how do we focus on a solution? It won't get very far with liberal women, which we both know. Tell me what you want to see, what you need, how men want to be supported in this.
Steven Crowder: It's not men, it's children. I'll give it to you, and I'll be very curt with it.
Jillian Michaels: Okay, that's fair.
Steven Crowder: And this isn't you I'm doing an impression of you, so I'm not saying this at you. I'm doing an impression of you. You crazy bitch, get the fuck out of here. That's what you need to be saying to those women. You need to be saying to women, there needs to be a chorus of women like you going, you evil crazy bitch, she killed her children, and being willing to lose friends. We're not seeing that kind of rhetoric from the minority of women.
Men are looking at the self-governance mechanism and saying, ooh, it doesn't exist for half of the country right now. And that's what concerns them. Most of the conservative women I know will agree with me or in their sewing circles, but they're not losing friends over it. They're not having these discussions. They're still concerned with being agreeable. And so the women who have dominating personalities, like all those cackling hags you saw on that jury, they are the ones who have a voice.
So it needs to be governed by first off, there aren't enough of them, but conservative women need to be aggressive, need to be dismissive, and need to mock women, as opposed to always going back to men going, yeah, but not all women. You need to go, you know what? You're right, too much. You crazy bitch. That's what needs to happen. That's the start.
Jillian Michaels: I hear you.
Clip (Newsmax, September 10, 2026):
Unknown Speaker: The hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
Carl Higbie: And there it is. Couldn't get over it. Yeah, no, he couldn't. Could you imagine sitting in a room with 11 other people like this, trying to convince all of them that killing your child is a crime and them not seeing all the while? But you're called the unreasonable one.
Unknown Speaker: He's very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said.
Carl Higbie: Oh, he was arrogant. Never in their mind did they ever think that maybe they could have been wrong. No, no. They only wanted to lecture this guy. They thought that they knew better. They were apparently nurses on the jury, too, and they knew better than this guy, too.
Unknown Speaker: We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts. The nurses in the room spoke to that. And cross on the jury.
Unknown Speaker: There were nurses on the jury.
Unknown Speaker: Yes. And they spoke to that, that specific thing. That was a question that he had. And he just completely disregarded the information that they gave.
Carl Higbie: Bam! There it is. They admitted just right there. She admitted that they pushed personal opinions, not medical opinions, they're not doctors. Personal opinions pushed as fact in a case after, after the judge specifically gave them guidance not to base your opinion on anything that was not presented.
Those nurses on the jury are not expert witnesses, and therefore none of their opinion is relevant in the presentation of evidence. And that woman just said the opposite. And they use that to sway another juror. The judge noted this.
Judge: So if somebody has a question in that jury room, you are not allowed to try and answer it by anything other than through the exhibits and evidence you have for it.
Carl Higbie: No. We're nurses and we know better. That's what I heard from those women right there. They accused the one seemingly sane member of the jury of not listening to law, but they are the ones that didn't listen to law. I just showed you.
In fact, the one juror, even there, there was one juror on this that believed that Lindsay Clancy was initially guilty of first degree murder and then was convinced by the cabal by the other jurors that she could be found innocent by reason of insanity, and then she changed her mind.
Unknown Juror: So originally I felt as though she was guilty and she was criminally responsible for it. And maybe I still believe that in a certain way.
Carl Higbie: I'm like, I just— One of these women openly said that she knew that Lindsay Clancy killed her children, but it should be dismissed because she snapped. Is the words I think she used.
Unknown Juror: They all had criticism for the prosecution.
Unknown Juror: I just found it to be harsh, Sue, very, very harsh.
Unknown Juror: We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did, and she's admitting that. We're trying to figure out, did she know right from wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved her children so much. Everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children, so she had to have snapped.
Carl Higbie: Do you hear yourself? Just play this back for that person, see if they find any problem with it. And then if they don't, institutionalize that juror. And for all you fools out there on the air, oh it was the husband or she never admitted to killing them. There you go. She did.
But since when is she snapped a legal justification for killing your children? It never, never. That's like saying, Oh, well, Jeffrey Dahmer just kept getting hungry. Do these people realize what they're saying? It's that crazy.
What if she killed her, like the juror's kids? Should she be acquitted of that? Of course not. These women on the jury, in these interviews, they're just as insane as the woman on trial, if you ask me.
Bob Metz:
Earlier in the show, you'll recall that I said I would be connecting the dots between fact and fiction, between what is happening in real life and what was depicted in our show opener today. Posted to TikTok, it features an anonymous young black woman testifying about her own personal experience with having a Lindsay Clancy mother.
Unknown Speaker: A lot of our mothers are Lindsay Clancy. We grew up with a Lindsay Clancy. Yep. The only difference is your mama was too scared to get locked up. But if your mama could, she unalive your ass. I know that spirit inside of Lindsay Clancy, because my mama got the same spirit. Hateful bitch that bullied her kids because she couldn't stand the father of her children.
My mother is Lindsay Clancy. And if she could get away with it, she would have offed me and my brother.
See, it's a lot of women out here who only get pregnant to control the father of their children. And when the nigger move on with another woman and she's stuck there with the kids, and ain't shit she could do about it. She tortures and abuses the children behind closed doors.
There's millions of women like Lindsay Clancy. They're called narcissists and sociopaths and psychopaths. A lot of them have good jobs. A lot of them are school teachers, a lot of them are nurses, a lot of them are in the military pretending to be good mothers the whole time. They are torturing their children behind closed doors, and they're one inch away from unaliving their children, but they're too scared to go to prison.
Let the good Lord expose them all. I'm here for it, bitch. There's a lot of Lindsay Clancys walking around two minutes away from harming their children permanently. They beat, bully, abuse their children because they can't control the men. They can't control the father of their children. So their children pay for it. Now they're about to set all women back by 50 years, 100 years. We're about to lose all our rights behind these bitches.
Watch them spiral. Watch all the copycats. There are women starting to hurt their children. Lindsay Clancy has a cult out here. And I hope that if you see these women online that protect Lindsay Clancy, they need to lose their jobs, they need to be reported, they need to lose their children and their jobs. Period.
Bob Metz:
What this personal real-life testimony chillingly described was the precise motivational state of mind of the character of Nellie Forbes, played by Marilyn Monroe, as the psychopathic babysitter, where she asks the little girl about her doll and then explains to her that "it's wicked to come between people. What if the doll cried and pestered and spied on you? You'd want to get rid of it, wouldn't you? You'd have to." And the look on Monroe's face at that moment is not so unlike the image of Lindsay Clancy accompanying this week's post.
This woman's testimony, just as she says Lindsay is cut from the same cloth of women like her own mother who torture their children because they hate and cannot control the father of their children, so too, Nellie Forbes saw the child Bunny as coming between her and a particular man she was trying to control.
That this state of mind was identified and portrayed so long ago in a movie made in the early 50s suggests that what we are seeing today with regard to so many women on social media is nothing new.
Houston, we have a problem, and a diagnosis alone cannot solve it. Women are definitely having some kind of collective and personal identity crisis, one that manifests itself in leftist subjectivist thinking. But when our laws and courts entertain outlandish concepts like women's rights or women's status, things will only go from bad to worse, especially for women and children.
But one place to start moving in the right direction is by eliminating this irrational defense of not guilty due to insanity. To even have to address a question like, did she know right from wrong is little more than a distraction and irrelevancy. Society at large requires protection from the Lindsay Clancys in the world because, like the dog who bites once and can no longer be trusted to be around the children, so too, all individuals who intentionally murder another should no longer be trusted to be freely mixing with others. Whether she's locked up in a prison or in a mental institution is mere nuance at this stage in the proceedings, and this is a controversy that is not going to go away anytime soon.
I know this hasn't been an easy issue to come to terms with, but here's hoping that we'll be able to find something less morbid and repulsive to discuss when we get together again next week as we continue our journey in the right direction, and until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We'll see you then.
Clip (Dry Bar Comedy, January 26, 2024):
Bobby Tessel: The other day I called somebody Mrs., and she snapped at me. She goes, it's Miss. I said, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I don't know why I ever would have thought that somebody would have married you.