The Lindsay Clancy case – Is it a watershed moment?

Posted on by
Reply

Is it a watershed moment in the relations between men and women? Is it a sign that men have absolutely had enough of women and their emotional instability? This is the first of a series of comments I will post in answer to those questions.

*****

Lindsay Clancy and the Perennial Innocence of Killer-Mothers

Western criminal law has been soft on violent mothers for at least the past 250 years

Janice Fiamengo, Aug 25, 2026

The headlines are standard: “Women in pink rally in support of Lindsay Clancy who is on trial for killing 3 children,’” “America’s saddest murder trial: mental health in focus in Lindsay Clancy case,” “Lindsay Clancy’s trial shows how badly the system fails mothers,” and “Everyone Failed Lindsay Clancy.”

The headlines look away from the actual victims in the case: the three helpless children who were strangled to death in early 2023. All the sympathetic emphasis is on their mother, portrayed as a tragic figure allegedly “failed” by others and not morally responsible for her horrific act.

As in many cases of mothers who murder their children (I discuss other recent cases here), Lindsay Clancy has defenders aplenty eager to cry for her and proclaim their solidarity (for one compilation, see here). Some are even willing to say that they have felt as she allegedly felt—eager to dispatch their children. Her grisly act has provoked masses of donations to a GoFundMe account (reportedly at one million dollars) as well as enthusiastic rallies of (mostly) women proclaiming her innocence.

Many pink-themed supporters insist on asserting, without logical or evidentiary foundation, that it was Patrick Clancy, Lindsay’s then-husband, who deserves the lion’s share of the blame, whether for failing to support his wife adequately during her post-partum depression or even, as some allege, for killing the children himself and then convincing his mentally fragile wife to take the blame.

Read the rest HERE . . .

The Australian War Memorial scandal

Posted on by
Reply

The AWM and Historians’ Made-up Wars

Robert Hill, Quadrant, Aug 28 2026

On November 14, 2025, Rachel Perkins and Henry Reynolds came to the Australian War Memorial to launch The Australian Wars, a collection edited by Perkins, Stephen Gapps, Mina Murray and Reynolds. There is nothing remarkable about a work of military history being launched at the War Memorial; it is precisely where one might expect such a book to be presented and sold. What was remarkable was that The Australian Wars does not establish its subject as military history so much as assert it. The book presents a politically and ideologically charged reconstruction of colonial violence as warfare, yet the military characteristics necessary to sustain that classification are not merely contested: when examined, they are strikingly absent. Its launch inside the Memorial, and its inclusion within the Memorial’s bookshop, therefore, did more than promote a book: it bestowed institutional legitimacy upon the conclusion before the historical case had been made.

The issue is not whether violence occurred on the British colonial frontier in Australia — hereafter, the “British frontier”. Aboriginal people were killed, settlers were killed, massacres occurred and reprisals followed. The far larger claim is that these events amounted to wars: conflicts properly belonging to the same historical category as the wars and military operations commemorated within the Australian War Memorial. That distinction matters. Much of the alleged warfare occurred not on the frontier of an Australian nation, but on the frontiers of separate British colonies under the Crown. To place those conflicts within the Australian War Memorial therefore requires more than demonstrating colonial violence. It requires demonstrating that the historical threshold of war was actually met. That proposition deserves something stronger than repetition, moral force or modern consensus.

It requires proof. 

In my earlier article at Quadrant Online, The ‘Wars’ That Weren’t, I demonstrated that once the constituent incidents are disaggregated, the national “Frontier Wars” narrative loses its military coherence. What remains are separate episodes of killing, reprisal, policing and local resistance. Here I reach the same conclusion from the opposite direction. If these really were wars, where is the military footprint they should have left behind?

Read the rest HERE . . .

Mehreen Faruqi – suffering from white-skin envy

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Mehreen Faruqi comes from one of the backward sh*tholes of Asia, a country that is presently torturing one of its heroes, a man that would be a hero in any country of the West, a dashing, handsome, swash-buckling, all-round cricketer that thrilled stadiums with his cricketing feats. Regrettably, Faruqui belongs to the class of Imran Khan’s tormenters.

And she’s in Australia, abusing the people and the country that has given her a life that is light years away from the degradation most of her fellow-countrymen suffer: a salary well above the ordinary Australian battler, the means to invest and profit from her investments, and a platform from which to preach her far-left ideas and abuse the people that allowed her into their country.

Sadly, for Faruqi, despite all the benefits accrued to her by her position in Australia, she cannot change her skin which is why she constantly refers to its colour.

Russia’s hybrid war

Posted on by
Reply

Below is an excellent interview with Sean Wiswesser, author of TRADECRAFT, TACTICS AND DIRTY TRICKS: RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE & PUTIN’S SECRET WAR

Hybrid warfare is a strategy that blends conventional military force with non‑military tools—such as cyberattacks, disinformation, economic pressure, and proxy actors—to achieve political objectives while staying below the threshold of open war.

Hybrid warfare integrates multiple instruments of power—military, political, economic, informational, and technological—to exploit ambiguity and weaken an opponent without triggering full-scale conflict. It deliberately blurs the lines between war and peace, state and non‑state actors, and overt and covert action.

Endemic violence in primitive communities

Posted on by
Reply

A Blood-Soaked Land: Part II

Robert Hill, Quadrant, Aug 21 2026

Cultural lethal violence was institutionalised in Aboriginal societies in a way that sustained warfare was not. Payback and retaliatory punishment could be socially sanctioned or obligatory, but there were no standing armies, permanent commands or institutions for sustained military campaigning. The deep record is therefore one of recurring lethal violence, not continuous war.

The same caution should apply to the frontier. Killing, reprisal and punitive expedition did not automatically become “war” merely because one participant was British. Yet modern revisionism increasingly reverses the categories: raid and reprisal between Aboriginal groups remain “feud” or “payback”, while analogous episodes involving the British are aggregated across decades and vast distances into “Frontier Wars”. In the process, scattered resistance is retrospectively endowed with a military coherence the underlying social organisation did not possess.

Demographically, the terminology changes nothing. A man killed in revenge is no less dead because his death is called payback rather than warfare. What matters is frequency, lethality and persistence.

Comparative anthropology reinforces the distinction. Lawrence Keeley, professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and author of the influential Oxford University Press study War Before Civilization, showed from archaeological and ethnographic evidence that recurring raids and relatively small clashes could impose heavy proportional losses on non-state populations. More revealing still are anthropologists Douglas Fry and Patrik Söderberg. In a peer-reviewed 2013 study published in Science, they systematically examined lethal aggression in 21 mobile forager societies drawn from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Their conclusion cuts against claims of ubiquitous primitive warfare: most lethal incidents were homicide, interpersonal disputes or feud, while warfare constituted only a minority.

That does not weaken the argument. It defines it.

Read the rest HERE . . .

Read Robert Hill’s The myth of Invasion