In two years time, we will mark a major centennial event, as 2028 marks the 100 year anniversary of universal suffrage: of women securing full equal voting rights with men.

So there is a sort of nice balance that half of Twitter now seems to think it's time to take them away again.

In a post that received 11,000 likes and was viewed over 175,000 times, Twitter user Evan Kilgore fumed:

"Women shouldn't vote. Women shouldn't be judges. Women should[n't] be politicians. Women shouldn't be jurors. Women shouldn't be cops. The amount of women I see defending Lindsay Clancy have made me reconsider women's rights. Sorry not sorry."

Jack Shepherd added:

"Lindsay Clancy Trial, I've been watching this closely. I'm watching it for several reasons, but mostly because it shows exactly why women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and it's a warning to all men..."

Meanwhile, journalist Sarah Fields, who has nearly half a million Twitter followers, chimed in with:

"I cannot believe I’m saying this, but if Lindsay Clancy is found not guilty by a jury with nine women on it, I might actually be radicalized into supporting the repeal of the 19th. I vote often, and I vote consistently. But at this point, it might be a sacrifice I’m willing to make - if I thought it would even make a difference. Liberal women are destroying America. And protecting children is above all else for me."

Notably, in order to find these Tweets, I did not search for anything relating to Lindsay Clancy. I simply searched for 'women shouldn't vote' and 'women vote' - and yet, every prominent Tweet returned in the search referenced the Clancy trial.

So, as we can see, the Clancy psyop - for that's precisely what it is - to manage perceptions and manufacture consent for the next stage of the agenda is proving exceptionally successful.

I have spoken a great deal at this site about the engineered swing to the far right, and outlined how social architects are in the midst of manufacturing artificial "far-right extremism", very similar in tone to that presented to us via predictive programming vehicle, The Handmaid's Tale.

As anyone who has endured the series knows (if you're going to brave it, I suggest detoxing with brain bleach in between episodes - old Garfield cartoons were my preferred go-to), the ultra-authoritarian and repressive 'Republic of Gilead' strips women of all economic and political rights, including the right to vote, hold public office, or have any voice in governance or law-making.

Just as scores of high-profile personalities are now calling for in the real world.

The Clancy show-trial - replete with nudge-wink imagery regarding the performative, masonic, parlour trick nature of it all - was scrupulously designed to have exactly the effect it is having:

To have women defending Clancy by effectively stating, "she can't be held accountable for her actions, because hormonal women become mentally unstable and can't control themselves", hence giving men the perfect platform to respond with:

"We know, that's why we didn't give you any rights for five thousand years."

The Clancy trial is serving to resurrect (as the #MeToo movement did, and was designed to, as well) age-old stereotypes about women being irrational, hormonal, and unable to cope in a society where they are given the same social, legal, and political rights as men.

It is only extremely recently that some societies decided to recognise women as fully autonomous human beings, entitled to all the same rights as men (whilst many societies continue to vigorously reject such a notion). As recently as the 1970s, women still typically required male authorisation to open a bank account, secure a loan, or obtain a mortgage, whilst employers were legally entitled to fire women once they had got married up until 1975.

Going back a little further, and in particular relation to the Clancy trial, women were not permitted to serve on juries until 1919, and even then, juries still remained mostly male, until further jury reform acts of the 1970s.

As those following the Clancy case will know, the jury deliberating upon her trial was predominantly female - nine women to three men - and unable to reach a unanimous verdict: eleven of the jurors, including all the women, voted to acquit on the basis of insanity, whereas one lone male voted to convict for first-degree murder. As a unanimous verdict could not be reached, a mistrial was declared.

Of course, social media ignited into apoplexy at this news, with high-profile political provocateur, Matt Walsh, who has four million Twitter followers, lavishing praise upon the standalone male juror. Walsh stated in a series of Tweets:

"The defense just confirmed in open court that the hold out juror is a man. It's one sane man against two simps and nine girlbosses. Hold the line, sir."

"One lone male juror stood for justice and common sense. A true hero. I can only imagine what he's endured."

"Mistrial. One heroic male juror held the line for six days. This should have been a guilty verdict, but at least he prevented the atrocity of an acquittal. Now it's up to the DA to do the right thing and prosecute the case again."

Whether there will be a second trial remains at present unclear, but it's almost irrelevant at this point, because the Clancy op has already been an unparalleled success in inducing the desired response from the masses:

Namely, that women are hormonal, hysterical liabilities who need to be systematically stripped of all rights as otherwise they murder their kids when they're having a bad day, and then the sisterhood protects them and says they shouldn't be blamed.

That's the message we're supposed to come away from the Clancy trial with.

"Oh, come on, this is just one anomalous case," some may sensibly protest. "You can't use a single murder case to make sweeping generalisations about all women."

No, you can't. And that's precisely why the establishment and its insidious actors are now invoking fifty years of abortion statistics to further emphasise their point.

Author and commentator Megan Basham, who self-describes as a "Christian pitbull" and has nearly quarter-of-a-million followers on Twitter, declared:

"Women are increasingly going to excuse child murder because 25% of American women (at least) have blood guilt on their hands that they have never reckoned with. A quarter of American women have already murdered their own children. So it should hardly surprise us that they identify with the killer and not the victims."

In echoes of Serena Joy's character in The Handmaid's Tale, Basham has written a book, entitled Beside Every Successful Man: Getting the Life You Want By Helping Your Husband Get Ahead, in which she argued that women can achieve greater financial security for their families by quitting their jobs and applying their skills, education, and talent to advance their husbands' careers.

Needless to say, Basham, who is highly successful and accomplished in her own right, has not taken her own advice, as - veritably by definition - all high-profile 'trad' female influencers do not. If they had taken their own advice, we would know nothing about them, because they would be at home being traditional and supporting their husbands, yet instead they're writing bestselling books, undertaking national speaking tours, and fighting on the frontlines of the culture wars.

Why the discordance? Why don't they practice what they preach?

We will return to that later, but Basham has skilfully articulated exactly the position scores of right-wing influencers now can and will take:

"We know for a fact that women are high-risk child killers since one in four of them have murdered their own children in the womb."

Colette Harrington - a screenwriter and actress - declared to her nearly 70,000 followers:

"I’m ready to change my sex. Women are disgusting me. These “women” are subhuman. They are having a rally for child killer Lindsay Clancy. Do you see what abortion has done to women? Now they cheer for women that kill their babies outside the womb."

Meanwhile, this meme is doing the rounds, showing the apparent evolution of women, from being anti-abortion, to supporting it as "safe, legal, and rare", to extending it to full-term pregnancies, to eventually endorsing straight-up filicide, as per the Lindsay Clancy case.

This "slippery slope" argument isn't easy to dismiss. Since abortion was legalised in the USA, far from being "rare", more than 60 million abortions have been performed, and around 1 in 4 women have had (at least) one.

This was an entirely predictable trajectory, and the intended trajectory, of legalising abortion, because when you make something that was previously illicit and taboo legal, you get more of it. A lot more.

Social engineers legalised abortion knowing it would not be rare, but that it would quickly become epidemic. They did this because they wanted a lot less people around, and simply sold it to the masses with marketing rhetoric regarding how rare it would supposedly be, and how it would enhance female happiness and promote family prosperity.

In reality, abortion was a catastrophic blow both to families and women, because where a woman could once have expected the man responsible for an unplanned pregnancy to marry her and provide a stable family life, once abortion became easily available, she could be coldly instructed to "get rid of it", and the man could wash his hands of any responsibility.

Although a stereotype persists that abortions are primarily procured by ambitious "girl bosses" who worry a baby could get in the way of their prestigious careers, in reality, the decision is far more likely to be driven by a perception of insufficient support, both in terms of financial support, and personal support from the baby's father. Hence, the demographic most likely to get an abortion are low-income women in their twenties who already have at least one child, rather than high-achieving childless career women.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of women who procure abortions are unmarried, so what the statistics tell us is that young, working-class women who would, sixty years ago, have been married with a number of children, are instead unmarried and procuring abortions after their first child, due primarily to weak support systems.

This is the predictable corollary of legal abortion, because once abortion is a socially acceptable option then far more women will opt for it than when it was not. Legalising something doesn't necessarily make it any safer, but it does make it powerfully more socially acceptable, and hence many more people engage in it.

The devious social engineers who campaigned to legalise abortion, exploiting vulnerable women like 'Jane Roe' (who actually never had an abortion) to do so, did it because they knew how many - disproportionately young, vulnerable and disadvantaged - women would adopt the choice once it was legal, who would not otherwise have done so: not because they feared for their safety, but because they feared the social and moral repercussions.

To make something legal sends a powerful social message that it is morally acceptable, and hence incidences of it skyrocket. Drugs are illegal not because anyone believes this stops all people taking drugs, but because it significantly reduces the number of people taking them and the amounts in which they are consumed. Legalise drugs, and numbers of users, and frequency of use, would very quickly escalate (some sections of society may like to deny this, but we only need to compare the frequency and usage of legal drugs like alcohol, to illegal ones, to see that it is unequivocally true).

That's exactly what happened with abortion, and what was intended to happen. Social engineers wanted much more of it, so they legalised it, without admitting to the public their real intentions, so that they could play the long game.

They gave 'safe' and easy access to abortion to women in order that, fifty years later, they could say:

"We gave you this privilege that was meant only for extreme circumstances, it was supposed to be safe, legal, and rare, but look at how you've abused it. It just shows that you can't be trusted with having rights, especially around children. I mean, you've killed 60 million of them. That's why you now think it's fine to murder kids whatever their age, as the Lindsay Clancy trial showed us."

It's a tough position to argue with. If large numbers of women demonstrate by their actions that they believe it is acceptable to terminate the life of children inside the womb, then why not outside of it too? The moral position that abortion is perfectly acceptable but infanticide is abhorrent isn't really ethically coherent, especially if full-term abortion is legal (it is).

What the Clancy case has been sculpted to demonstrate, then, is that women have been irrevocably corrupted by having reproductive rights - that giving them access to abortion has ultimately culminated in them killing their own five-year-olds, just as conservative moralists always warned it would - and this is therefore a stark wake up call to the world to urgently reverse those rights.

Just as it is in The Handmaid's Tale.

In an early episode of the show, the collective handmaids are harshly berated by 'Aunt Lydia' - a Miss Trunchball-like figure, tasked with training and managing the handmaids - who declares, commenting on the infertility epidemic amongst women that prompts the creation of Gilead:

"And as birthrates fell, what did they do? They made things worse. Can you imagine? Birth control pills, morning after pills, murdering babies in the womb? Cutting then into pieces. How could they have done such things? Just so they could have their orgies. Their Tinder. So they could rut about like beasts. Such wickedness. They were dirty women. They were sluts."

Not really that distinguishable from the current ferocious fulminating on Twitter, is it?

That's by design, because the current cultural "reality" has been scripted by predictive programming, just as it always is. The screenwriter behind The Handmaid's Tale TV series (a Jewish individual) knew what he was doing as he scripted that show, as he had been tasked with predictively programming the masses, just as many authors and screenwriters have historically been - some well known examples including Aldous Huxley and Brave New World, and Charlie Brooker and Black Mirror.

These people weren't super prescient Nostradamus figures who had an uncanny ability to "predict" future trends: they were insiders who had seen the blueprints and knew the plans, so were relating them to the masses, just as their "code" requires them to do.

We are on the precipice of a swing to the hard right in the UK, USA, and other countries around the world, and we can expect that to exponentially gather pace once JD Vance comes to power in the USA and Reform in this country.

The Lindsay Clancy trial (and the inevitable high-profile "child murders" that the media will report following it) is preparing us for a plunge into an authoritarian, Gilead-style theocracy which is divided down harsh gender lines and where women are removed from public life.

That may sound farcical, ludicrous, could never happen here - but what would people in 2019 have said if they were told that, the following year, they would be put under house arrest by the government, banned from going to work, and prevented from visiting dying loved ones in hospital?

Nobody would have believed it. It would have sounded lunatic, fantastical, the stuff of dystopian fiction... yet it happened. And there were warnings it was going to happen, too, specifically via predictive programming like the movie Contagion.

So we would probably be wise to pay attention to the predictive programming they're showing us now.

Up until this point in the essay, we have studied the transition from 'Clancy to Commanders' ('Commanders' being the name given to male authority figures in The Handmaid's Tale) as referenced in the essay's title... but how do we get from that to communism?

Look again at what The Handmaid's Tale shows us: not that citizens are forever confined to the brutish hellscape of Gilead, but that there is a glittering and liberated new world available to them, over the border in Canada.

Canada, as described by a Handmaid's fan site, "retains its parliamentary democracy. Following the fall of the mainland United States to the autocratic Gilead, Canada's democratic institutions and laws survive intact: Moira visits a gay/lesbian nightclub in Toronto, Emily's marriage to her wife Sylvia is still legal, the series depicts female Canadian politicians and an openly gay diplomat, there are political protests on Canadian streets, Canadian hospitals are shown to have female medical staff, Emily's son has a female schoolteacher, and Canada maintains a free press".

Canada, effectively, is modern-day liberal Britain or America, but where the "far-right" no longer exists (their all having been annexed to Gilead), and the regime instead celebrates leftist ideologies including an emphasis on LGBT rights, women's liberation, and secular democracy.

That's because that's what the real social endgame is: to eliminate right-wing values altogether, by pushing them to such unpalatable extremes that people violently reject them and embrace - ultimately - communism instead.

Various high-profile political pundits are currently cosplaying as virulent "far-right extremists" for precisely this reason.

I observed earlier that it was odd we have such a discordance with female 'trad' influencers living lifestyles that are the exact opposite of those they claim to champion. I referenced Megan Basham, but there are plenty of other examples, perhaps most notably, Erika Kirk, the alleged widow of "assassinated" activist Charlie.

Erika claims to support traditional, anti-feminist lifestyles, where women marry young, don't go to college or work, and stay at home with the kids.

Yet Erika herself didn't marry until the age of 32, has three university degrees, and, even when her husband was supposedly murdered, thus leaving their two very young children fatherless, she still opted not to stay home with the children and instead continued with her career.

Equally, as I explored in a previous article, the leadership at UK's "traditionalist" Reform claim to support stable marriage and family, yet they are variously divorced, separated, and unmarried, and none are currently living with the mothers of their children.

America's JD Vance, meanwhile - although married to the mother of his children - had a very swift and convenient conversion to all things conservative, after previously being a liberal atheist whose life story was turned into a Hollywood blockbuster by famously left-wing director, Ron Howard.

Talking of Hollywood, President Donald Trump has a star on the Walk of Fame there, owing to all his film credits, culminating in his latest role as "right-wing dictator" when it has been known for decades that Donald Trump is a socially liberal and permissive person who was a registered Democrat for years.

It is because all these people (note the Hollywood credentials) are acting. That's what politics is, remember? Showbiz for ugly people.

Donald Trump, JD Vance, Erika Kirk, Nigel Farage - none of these people are really hardcore right-wing religious fanatics, and their personal and political biographies show you quite clearly they're not, but they're acting that way to fulfil an agenda: in short, to so satirise, exaggerate, and skew what true right-wing traditional values are, that people ultimately entirely reject them and swing hard and permanently back left.

If this wasn't completely clear by this point, the American right has launched a character who is very plainly satirising and lampooning the right, to the extent many people initially thought he was obviously a parody account... so were left rather floored when he was appointed to a key position in Donald Trump's administration.

Yet a satirist he nevertheless clearly is, and I present for corroboration his latest post on the Clancy trial.

"I ended a date early tonight over Lindsay Clancy. I took a lovely young lady, Rachel, out to dinner tonight at a famous Michelin-star restaurant. Things started off nicely; we had good conversation and enjoyed a few beverages. Naturally, I ordered her a salad with a light dressing, and I ordered the 38oz porterhouse. Medium rare, of course. Our food arrived, and the conversation turned to current events. The steak was savory, beefy, and rich. A fine piece of meat cooked to absolute perfection. I was savoring the last few bites of meaty bliss when I heard Rachel say something about a “mistrial” that momentarily distracted me from my meal.

“It’s so, like, disgusting that one juror detailed the entire judicial process and caused a mistrial,” she said as she tapped her fork on her empty salad plate. “I feel so bad for Lindsay. She’s going to have to go through all of the pain of that trial AGAIN now…” I felt my left eye begin to twitch with righteous indignation as I processed the words Rachel was saying. I put my hands across the table and signaled for a time out.

“Hold on, Rachel,” I said. “I have something to say, but I’m not going to let it ruin this beautiful steak.“ Savoring every bite, I finished my meal in peaceful silence; only the ambient sounds of an elite restaurant could be heard. I cleared my plate and leaned back in my chair, motioning for the waitress to bring me the check.

“Lindsay Clancy is a murderer,” I said, looking Rachel directly in the eye. “Juror number 12 is a hero. Period. End of story.” I was fired up. I continued to educate Rachel on the facts of the case at a rapid pace and with increasing passion. The waitress had arrived about halfway through my barrage of correction, but I was too locked in to notice. I finished saying my piece, took a breath, and paid the bill.

“It was nice meeting you, Rachel.” I said as I stood up to leave. “I hope you’ve learned something valuable tonight.” She looked stunned as I strolled away and went right to the door. Several other tables had overheard our conversation. I noticed several men at other tables giving me subtle fist pumps and nods of approval as I passed by.

I walked out the door and tossed the valet, a handsome and strong-looking young man with an intense gaze named Jon, a crisp $20 and got in my car. “Sir,” he interjected. “Should I let the lady know the car is ready?” “No, son,” I replied as I pulled away. “Call her an Uber Pool. I’m out.”

That is satire. Very, very obvious satire (for reference, a 38oz steak is over a kilogram of meat, equivalent to about nine hamburgers). It's written by a liberal man lampooning conservatives. He is parodying their tendency towards carnivore diets, their paternalistic approach to women and their weight, and, primarily, the reaction of many conservative men to the Lindsay Clancy trial.

Yet, to reiterate, the author of the post - Nick Adams - does not officially present as a satirist, but as a genuine political figure, to the extent that he has been appointed the Special Presidential Envoy for American Tourism, Exceptionalism, and Values.

High-profile performers on the world stage do not publicly present as what they really are. Donald Trump is a liberal actor acting; Nick Adams is a liberal satirist satirising - while it's clear to those with eyes to see that's what they are, they are never going to publicly confirm it whilst they remain in character.

Just as you wouldn't expect Ross from Friends to suddenly break the third wall, and declare to the camera, "actually, I'm not a geeky paleontologist with a string of failed marriages, I'm an exceptionally famous and successful Hollywood titan", actors like Trump and Adams aren't going to overtly tell you the truth, either. Not whilst they're in character and on set, which they always are whilst on the world stage.

They, along with supporting characters like Erika Kirk and Nigel Farage, are spearheading a faux-conservative revolution, which is designed to lead us into a 'Handmaid's' style future, which will be so hideous we virulently kick back against it and implore for global communism instead.

The predictive programming of super-famous change agent, John Lennon, told us exactly what the endgame is with his song 'Imagine'. The iconic anthem that millions around the world know by heart, with its glowing endorsement of abolishing private property, national borders, and organised religion, was described by Lennon himself as "virtually the Communist manifesto".

Generation after generation has been trained to repeat this song like an incantation, because the ruling classes believe in the power of manifestation and mantra. How many million, billion times has this song been sung around the world, over so many years, and what potent spells are being cast on the mass mind through this powerful repetition?

We may be quite close to finding out.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.