General

Haaretz: German Jews ‘Appalled’ by Historic AfD Win as Israel Avoids Direct Condemnation

/16 Comments/in /by

Notice that a settler group was happy at the result: “describing it as part of ‘a global conservative and nationalistic wave forming.'” But of course, the vast majority of Germany’s Jews support Israel as an exclusively Jewish state, its apartheid and ethnic cleansing policies, and its genocide in Gaza—and therefore they also oppose the left because it is critical of Israel. Once again, diaspora Jews assert their interests against the interests of native population while supporting Israel no matter what it does.

While a German Jewish establishment leader said the far-right’s result in Saxony-Anhalt was ‘something I couldn’t have imagined in my worst nightmares,’ Israel’s envoy in Berlin called for a political ‘firewall’ against the left as well

Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD's top candidate in Saxony-Anhalt, addresses supporters at the party's election event in Magdeburg on September 6, 2026.
Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD’s top candidate in Saxony-Anhalt, addresses supporters at the party’s election event in Magdeburg on September 6, 2026. Credit: AFP/RONNY HARTMANN

Germany’s Jewish establishment said it was “appalled” by the far-right Alternative for Germany’s landslide victory on Sunday, while Israel’s ambassador called the result a “flashing red warning light” but did not directly condemn a party Israel has kept at arm’s length over senior members’ Holocaust distortion and antisemitism.

The party’s triumph in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt marked the biggest victory for a far-right party in Germany since World War II, putting the AfD in a position to lead a state government for the first time. It fell short of an outright majority to govern alone, but may be able to form a coalition with the left-wing populist BSW.

AfD members and supporters react to exit poll results at the party's election event in Magdeburg, Germany, September 6, 2026.

AfD members and supporters react to exit poll results at the party’s election event in Magdeburg, Germany, September 6, 2026. Credit: AFP/RONNY HARTMANN

AfD leaders at both the federal and state levels hailed the result as a “historic” moment for the party and a signal that it is ready to win the next federal election.

Charlotte Knobloch, president of the Jewish Community of Munich and Upper Bavaria, a Holocaust survivor and prominent figure in Germany’s Jewish establishment, said: “It’s hard for me to recognize my homeland anymore.”

President of the Munich and Upper Bavaria's Jewish Community Charlotte Knobloch, last year.
President of the Munich and Upper Bavaria’s Jewish Community Charlotte Knobloch, last year. Credit: AFP/MICHAELA STACHE

“That right-wing extremists could win elections in Germany again in this way is something I couldn’t have imagined in my worst nightmares,” she added. “Quite frankly, it scares me.”

The American Jewish Committee, which also operates in Germany and is tied to the country’s Jewish establishment, called the result a “dark milestone,” citing the AfD’s “foundational antisemitism that is deeply embedded in its authoritarian-nationalist politics.”

American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Committee

@AJCGlobal

AfD’s election win in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt marks a grim milestone: The party is now within reach of forming Germany’s first far-right state government since the Nazi era. @AJCBerlin has been sounding the alarm on the AfD’s rampant, intrinsic, and foundational

Israel’s ambassador to Germany, Ron Prosor, told Israel’s Kan public radio on Monday morning that the events in Saxony-Anhalt light “a flashing red warning light not only for Germany, but for anyone who cares about Jewish life in Germany.” He criticized the far-right party’s “ignorance” and noted its calls for an arms embargo on Israel following the outbreak of the Gaza war.

Asked whether the AfD was a neo-Nazi party, Prosor declined to characterize it as such. “We are dealing with a party that primarily wants to address what its supporters say the mainstream parties are failing to provide answers to,” he said. While acknowledging that “there is also an antisemitic element,” Prosor said the result was also “a wake-up call for established parties that really are not providing answers.”

He said that the Jewish communities are “shocked and worried,” but that the focus should not only be on the AfD, citing the left-wing Die Linke and saying that “antisemitism is antisemitism, regardless of its political source.”

“Germany must wake up,” he said, suggesting that there should also be a political “firewall” against the left, invoking the term used in Germany to describe the established parties’ refusal to cooperate with the AfD.Israeli Ambassador to Germany Ron Prosor.

Israeli Ambassador to Germany Ron Prosor. Credit: Lisi Niesner/Reuters

As voting was underway on Sunday, Prosor wrote on X that “the danger of right-wing extremism is obvious. It is discussed, named and condemned,” but “left-wing antisemitism deserves exactly the same clarity.”

Israelis for Peace, an anti-occupation group in Germany, said the results were “terrifying to us as Jews and immigrants.”

The group called Prosor’s response “despicable,” accusing him of saying nothing about “neo-Nazi-aligned forces winning a huge majority in a German state” and instead “hurrying to warn against left-wing antisemitism.”

“This is indicative of the Israeli mainstream perception of the rising European far right,” the group said, arguing that Jerusalem is building an alliance with far-right forces “which they see as a bulwark against Muslims and the left.”

“It is a distorted and dangerous worldview,” the group added. “What we need is a popular front that stands up not only to the fascists in eastern Germany, but also to the fascists in Jerusalem.”

IsraelisfürFrieden
IsraelisfürFrieden

@FriedenIsraelis

·

The AfD’s win in Sachsen-Anhalt is terrifying to us as Jews, as immigrants, and as democrats. Not only do their Hitler salutes and the Völkisch symbolism remind us of the Nazi era, but also their real proposed policies against migrants, minorities, and people with disabilities. >

Show more

On Israel’s far right, Yishai Fleisher, a prominent West Bank settler and close associate of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir who has advised him on international outreach, celebrated the result, describing it as part of “a global conservative and nationalistic wave forming.”

“We will push back on Jihadism and the pro-slavery axis,” Fleisher wrote. “Congratulations Germany and Europe – there may be hope for you yet!”

No Israeli government official other than Prosor has yet commented publicly on the result.

Last year, Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli, who has expanded and cultivated Israel’s ties with Europe’s far right, wrote that AfD co-leader Alice Weidel is “easy to connect with,” describing her worldview as representing “a healthy liberal patriotism, responsible immigration policies, and a clear-eyed view of the dangers of radical Islam.”

At the same time, Chikli said that “time will tell whether this party will be able to purge itself of bullies who see no problem with serving in the SS,” adding: “I sincerely hope so.”

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has moved to end Israel’s diplomatic boycotts of some European far-right parties, but has so far excluded the AfD. In a statement last year, he said Israel would continue its boycott of the party “at this stage.”

The AfD vs the Uniparty: Forty-four percent and still shut out

/5 Comments/in /by

The AfD has won the election in Saxony-Anhalt by a margin that would once have settled any argument about who should govern. According to the latest projection, the party received 44.0 percent of the vote, more than twice its 2021 share. The CDU (Christian Democratic Union, Chancellor Merz’s party) collapsed from 37.1 to 17.8 percent. The SPD (Social Democratic Party) reached 9.1 percent, the Left 8.8, and the Greens 8.7. The BSW (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance) crossed the threshold with 5.1 percent, while the FDP (the libertarian Free Democratic Party) disappeared from the state parliament with 2.4 percent. The AfD therefore finished more than twenty-six points ahead of its nearest rival and won almost as many votes as the CDU, SPD, Greens, and Left combined. Yet because it fell short of an absolute majority of seats, the parties it defeated may still keep it out of government. The election produced a clear winner, but the German party system may refuse to accept the political meaning of the result.

The numbers expose the true structure of German politics. On paper, Germany has many parties. In practice, it has two political camps: the AfD and everyone else. The CDU, SPD, Greens, and Left use different colors, slogans, and campaign posters, but when the existing order is threatened, they close ranks. Their disputes concern posts, budgets, and the speed at which common policies should be carried out. On the basic questions—mass immigration, the transfer of power to Brussels, sanctions against Russia, the climate program, public broadcasting, political surveillance, and the exclusion of the AfD—the direction remains the same. Governments change from SPD-led to CDU-led and back again, while policy moves along the same road. The voter may replace the driver, but the vehicle does not turn.

Eurosiberia is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The coming struggle over the government of Saxony-Anhalt will make this plain. Current projections give the AfD 39 of the state parliament’s 83 seats. The CDU has 16, while the SPD, Greens, and Left each have eight. The BSW holds the remaining four seats. The CDU, SPD, Greens, and Left together have only 40 seats, two short of the 42 required for a majority. They will therefore need the BSW, either as a formal fifth partner or as an outside supporter of a CDU-led minority government. The likely result is a firewall administration stretching from the nominally conservative CDU to the post-communist Left, with the BSW providing the final votes or abstentions needed to keep it alive. The parties will call this a defense of democracy. In plain English, it means that five parties may combine to deny power to the party that won 44 percent of the vote and defeated the CDU by more than two to one.

The CDU will stand at the center of this arrangement, and its conduct will remove the last doubt about what it has become. A conservative party would regard a landslide for the AfD as a demand to change course on immigration, energy, national sovereignty, education, and public order. The CDU will instead seek support from the SPD, Greens, Left, and perhaps the BSW so that it can continue governing after losing more than half its voters. A party willing to depend on the Left in order to suppress a conservative electoral revolt cannot honestly call itself conservative. The CDU is now a radical left-wing party in conservative dress. Its function is to prevent the German right from gaining power while giving left-wing policies the seal of bourgeois respectability. It offers the language of order during election campaigns and the program of the left once the votes have been counted.

This is why the word “democracy” has acquired such a strange meaning in Germany. The AfD is allowed to stand in elections, but not to exercise power after winning them. Its voters may participate, provided their votes have no effect on the composition of the government. The larger the AfD becomes, the larger the opposing bloc must become. Former enemies are reconciled overnight. The CDU can govern with the Greens, the SPD can support the CDU, the Left can rescue both, and the BSW can supply the final votes. Principles presented as sacred before the election become negotiable after it. The only fixed principle is that the AfD must remain outside. The firewall does not protect democracy from extremism. It protects the established parties from electoral competition.

The BSW now holds the decisive position. BSW candidate Claudia Wittig has ruled out simply electing either AfD candidate Ulrich Siegmund or CDU candidate Sven Schulze for the post of minister-president of Saxony-Anhalt, while leaving the door open to cooperation with the AfD on individual measures. She has said that decisions should be made according to their substance and called it “completely undemocratic” to exclude the AfD entirely from government after such a result. That is more honest than the position taken by the other parties, but it does not go far enough. Voting with the AfD on an occasional motion cannot replace a government able to carry out a coherent program. The present projection gives the AfD and BSW 43 seats together—an outright parliamentary majority. The BSW therefore has a choice between making political change possible and helping the defeated parties preserve their rule.

Rejecting a direct coalition with the AfD would be a grave strategic error for the BSW. Its voters did not support it so that it could become an extra wheel on a government run by the CDU, SPD, Greens, and Left. They were drawn to the BSW because it rejected the war course against Russia, uncontrolled immigration, economic policies that punish workers, and the moral lectures of the liberal establishment. On these questions, BSW voters are much closer to the AfD electorate than they are to the Greens or the present CDU. It is therefore reasonable to believe that most would prefer a direct AfD–BSW coalition to any arrangement that keeps the old government system alive. If the BSW uses its four seats to uphold the firewall, it will show that its rebellion ends at the point where power begins.

An AfD–BSW government would contain serious disagreements. The parties differ on economics, social policy, and parts of their political traditions. But coalitions are formed between different parties when no single party has won a majority. The common ground is already broad: peace with Russia, limits on immigration, affordable energy, opposition to ideological instruction in schools, and resistance to rule from Berlin and Brussels. A coalition agreement could define these shared goals while leaving other questions open. Such a government would also respect the central message of the election: Saxony-Anhalt voted for a break with the existing course. A five-party firewall arrangement would do the opposite.

The choice facing the BSW is also a choice about its own future. It can prove that it is an opposition party willing to use power, or it can become another support beam for the system it claims to oppose. If it enables a CDU-led government, the old parties will praise it as responsible. Its voters may draw a different conclusion. They may decide that only the AfD is prepared to turn opposition into action. The BSW would then have preserved the firewall at the cost of its own reason for existing.

The AfD has not won enough seats to govern alone. That is the fact on which the entire establishment will now depend. But the rest of the result is just as clear. The CDU was crushed. The governing model was rejected. The AfD became the dominant party of Saxony-Anhalt, while the parties that excluded it survived only by gathering behind a common barricade. If they now form another government without Ulrich Siegmund, Germany’s supposed multiparty democracy will appear in its true form. There are two parties: the AfD and the Uniparty. On Sunday, the AfD won the election. The Uniparty may still take the government.

If you enjoy my writing, order my new book, The Fate of White America, here.

Trump Saving #1

/2 Comments/in /by

Leftist anxiety about the AFD in the NYTimes

/6 Comments/in /by

The Horror: the AfD has become more radical over time, deepening its ties to neo-Nazis and promising to repatriate migrants. As it has done so, it has grown more popular.

Something Alarming Is About to Happen in Germany

A scrunched-up poster of Alice Weidel’s face on the ground, with one big blue eye staring out.
Credit…Nikita Teryoshin
Listen · 6:39 min

Mr. Kundnani is an expert on European politics and the author of “The Paradox of German Power.”

The far-right party Alternative for Germany, or AfD, is set to make a major breakthrough.

Saxony-Anhalt, a former East German state of around two million people, is relatively small. But the significance of the election there on Sunday could be seismic. The AfD is on track to win overwhelmingly and perhaps even secure an overall majority, which would mean that it could form a state government for the first time in its history. Long confined to the opposition, the AfD now stands on the cusp of wielding power — regionally, at least.

The rise of the AfD has already made coherent and stable government difficult at the national level. Its success in last year’s federal election, in which it came in second, with 20 percent of the vote, forced the center-right Christian Democrats to form a government with the center-left Social Democrats. The two parties have squabbled since Friedrich Merz became chancellor, and the AfD has surged in the polls. Now it is by far the most popular party in Germany.

What makes the AfD’s rise especially shocking is that it is much more extreme than other European far-right parties that either are already in power, like Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, or could be soon, like Marine Le Pen’s National Rally. Whereas those parties have sought in some ways to detoxify and moderate themselves, the AfD has become more radical over time, deepening its ties to neo-Nazis and promising to repatriate migrants. As it has done so, it has grown more popular.

Last year, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency classified the party as “right-wing extremist.” But the scale of the party’s support means it is too late to ban it. Instead, it has fallen to Mr. Merz’s government to stop it. Yet, preoccupied with remilitarization and foreign policy, it is seemingly incapable of doing so. For Germany — and the rest of Europe — the implications are truly alarming.

The AfD actually began with economic issues. It was created in 2013 as a direct response to Angela Merkel’s insistence that there was no alternative to bailing out Greece — hence its name — and was originally a party of fiscal hawks who opposed a redistributive European Union. After the refugee crisis in 2015, it repositioned itself as an anti-immigration, anti-Islam party; two years later, it got into the Bundestag, leading some to imagine that it had become focused only on cultural issues. But alongside xenophobes and nativists, fiscal hawks retained a home in the AfD.

Central to their concerns was maintaining the so-called debt brake, a constitutional amendment that limited government borrowing. During his 2025 campaign, Mr. Merz promised to keep it, even as it prevented much-needed investment. But after the Christian Democrats won the election, he reached an agreement with the Social Democrats and the Greens before the new Parliament had been formed to amend the constitution, exempting military spending from the brake. This democratically dubious move alienated many right-wing voters. It was around this point that the AfD overtook the Christian Democrats in the polls for the first time.

Mr. Merz didn’t dismantle the debt brake entirely. That would have made it possible to begin to solve some of Germany’s problems. Instead, as nonmilitary spending remains subject to the debt brake, Mr. Merz has continued to cut back the welfare state and told Germans that they need to work harder so that the economy can regain its “competitiveness.” This approach — increasing military spending while cutting elsewhere — may appeal to foreign policy analysts, but it is politically disastrous. A significant part of the AfD’s appeal lies in its focus on job losses and declining prospects.

Germany’s remilitarization has also been disastrous in another way. Since 2022, centrist parties in Germany have largely abandoned their commitment to the idea of Germany as a “Friedensmacht,” or force for peace, and now speak more about preparing for a full-scale war with Russia. Mr. Merz, for his part, says he wants Germany to possess “the strongest conventional army in Europe.” This has allowed the AfD to present itself as the party of peace — not unlike the way that President Trump positioned himself in opposition to the “forever wars” undertaken by American Democrats and Republicans alike.

The increase in military spending has caused some to wonder whether Germany could become “Europe’s next hegemon.” But that is a fantasy. For one thing, it is far from clear that Germany’s spending plans will translate into real military capabilities, to say nothing of a revival of the economy. For another, Germany is increasingly isolated within the European Union, not least because of its unconditional support for Israel and willingness to block any measures against it, like suspending the European Union’s association agreement with it. Perhaps most important, there is little support for military power, let alone war, among German voters.

When Mr. Merz was running to be chancellor, he promised to reduce the AfD’s popularity — chiefly by taking tougher measures against immigration, including what in the coalition agreement was called a “deportation offensive.” Then, on the night of the election, he declared that his “absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.A.,” producing much excitement among supporters of greater European autonomy. A year and a half in, both objectives remain further away than ever.

Two more regional elections later this month are likely to produce further advances for the AfD, deepening the sense of national crisis. Some Christian Democrats, in a panic, are already speculating about Mr. Merz’s future. Yet what the country needs is not a different chancellor but a completely different approach. Until then, the AfD will continue to inch closer to power.

A proposal seeks to exploit Americans’ debt to force them into wars against Israel’s enemies

/12 Comments/in /by

And don’t expect Israel to offer to pay for it.

September 3, 2026 at 3:33 pm

The United States announces that the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, carrying 3,500 U.S. troops, has reached the area of responsibility of U.S. Central Command in the Middle East on March 2026. [US CENTCOM/Handout - Anadolu Agency]

The United States announces that the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, carrying 3,500 U.S. troops, has reached the area of responsibility of U.S. Central Command in the Middle East on March 2026. [US CENTCOM/Handout – Anadolu Agency]

Writing in the Israeli newspape, security analyst AJ Jaff said a “federally administered debt-forgiveness enlistment program” that discharges Americans’ student loan, credit card and other debts after 24 or 36 months of service “would produce voluntary enlistment at scale”.

Jaff, described by the paper as “a senior strategic security strategist and analyst with 20 years of experience across corporate security, military, and geopolitical intelligence”, wrote that “the war with Iran will not be won through airstrikes” and that a ground invasion would require between 750,000 and 1.5 million American troops, against a current active US Army of 452,000.

The article proposed debt relief as the way to fill that gap. “The economics of the indebted American 20- and 30-something make this the most efficient conversion mechanism available,” said Jaff while explaining that “states generate the soldiers they need through the incentives that work on the population they have”.

The proposal has been condemned as confirmation that Israel expects Americans to fight and die in wars fought on its behalf. The Mises Institute, a US think tank, said the article amounted to a call for more Americans “to enlist – to die for Israel”, adding: “The whole point being to further subsidize the state of Israel.”

Users on social media described the proposal as an attempt “to exploit the crippling debt young Americans are carrying by offering them a chance at forgiveness if they’re willing to go die for Israel in the Persian Gulf.”

Responding to the plan, prominent American commentator Glenn Greenwald said: “ Israel pays scummy US politicians in both parties and DC vultures in the lobbying firms to ensure that Americans are forced to send billions to Israel. Then they argue that the debt of Americans should be exploited to force them to fight in wars against Israel’s enemies”.

The proposal to exploit the debt of Americans to fight wars against Israel’s enemies follows a string of remarks by senior Israeli officials suggesting they see US military power as a tool to be wielded on their behalf, while Israel itself stays out of the fighting. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich told the Katif Conference for National Responsibility on 21 July that a US war against Iran fought without Israeli participation was “the best for us”, adding, “Israel has no interest in joining the campaign.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, boasted on Israel’s Channel 14 on 30 August that he had used “close to a thousand hours” on American television and his “influence in the United States” over almost 40 years to persuade Washington to take military action against Iran, saying, “It took a long time to bring the US in.” The US had launched military action against Iran on 28 February, an escalation Netanyahu had reportedly been pressing Washington to undertake for months.

Paul Craig Roberts: Muslims Are Positioned to Change the Correlation of Forces in the World. Do They Realize It?

/9 Comments/in /by

Muslims Are Positioned to Change the Correlation of Forces in the World. Do They Realize It?

Paul Craig Roberts

The Iranian conflict is going very well for Israel.  Israel has succeeded in turning the conflict into one between Iran and Israel’s proxy, Washington, just as Washington has succeed in turning Ukraine into a conflict between Russia and Washington’s Ukrainian proxy.  Both the Iranian and Russian leaderships are fighting tit-for-tat conflicts with proxies, not with their real enemies.

This works great for Israel and Washington as neither suffer military consequences from the two wars they have provoked.  Washington attacks Iran, and American bases and military personnel suffer the consequences, not Israel.  Washington attacks Russia, and Ukraine suffers the consequences, not America.  

I had hoped that President Trump had found his exit strategy from Iran when he announced a few days ago that henceforth the war against Iran would be conducted economically with sanctions.  But obviously Netanyahu has refused to let his puppet out of Israel’s conflict with Iran, as Israel itself is insufficient to carry on the conflict.

To remind, in the 21st century Israel has used its Washington puppet to absorb Palestine into Israel.  Nothing remains of Palestine.  Israel has used Washington in what Washington covered up as a “war on terror” to destroy three obstacles to Greater Israel–Iraq, Libya, and Syria.  Currently, Israel has its puppet, the American president Donald Trump, attacking Iran.

Netanyahu knows that Trump cannot tolerate defeat and that his frustration with US military impotence against Iran will likely result in Trump’s use of nuclear weapons.  

The Muslin world has a chance to avoid this if there is any operative intelligence in the Muslim world. Recently, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan signed a mutual security agreement.  Turkey has capable conventional military forces and controls an important strait.  Saudi Arabia has oil.  Pakistan has nuclear weapons.  This is a meaningful alliance.  What is missing is Iran.

The addition of Iran provides determined leadership, and the four country bloc, if it were to form, occupies a strategic part of the world and would control the sea routes through which oil flows.

Why hasn’t this alliance formed?  It would be a Muslim alliance of Sunni and Shia.  It would compose 458,000,000 Muslins against 7,700,000 Israelis.  It would be a Muslim alliance with conventional and nuclear power that neither Israel or Israel’s puppet–the United States–could stand against.  One word from the alliance and the oil is turned off.  And the Western world dies.

If such an alliance formed, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen would rush to join it.  The entire Muslim Middle East would be united agains the Israeli Zionist agenda of Greater Israel.  Moreover, if such an alliance was formed now, it could have major impact on the upcoming Israeli elections.  

Netanyahu’s party and those of his coalition are all minority parties.  The Greater Israel Zionists govern Israel because the collection of Zionist parties into a coalition produces a ruling “majority.”

Israelis have tolerated the extreme Zionist parties, because of the success of Zionist propaganda and because it has, until the recent 12-day war, cost Israelis nothing.  But once the Iranian missiles penetrated the Iron Dome, Israelis experienced for the first time the cost of Zionism.

If the Israeli population goes to elections facing an alliance of 458,000,000 united Muslims with nuclear weapons, Israelis being intelligent people are likely to wonder if they want a party in office that continues to provoke the Muslim Middle East.

It is possible that an Israeli government would emerge that even if Israel retains its American puppet, would understand that Israel is not a match for the enormous change in the correlation of forces and elect to office a government that understands that Israel must accommodate the new situation in order to insure its own continuance as a country. 

Whereas Netanyahu might be evil, he is not stupid.  The longer Iran plays tit-for-tat with its proxy enemy, the longer Zionists have to orchestrate an event that creates Washington’s acceptance of the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.  The inability of the Muslim world to make important decisions is Zionism’s greatest asset.

If nuclear weapons are used against Iran, Muslim resistance will collapse. Turkey will retreat into NATO.  The Saudis will resort to being Washington’s tried and true puppet.  Pakistan will retreat into Asia.

Netanyahu knows this.  You can bet he is working on it, while Iran accommodates him by playing tit-for-tat with Washington, and the three Mecca agreement counties sit thinking whether they want the security agreement to be meaningful.

Lindsay Clancy Democrats: A Girl for Luigi

/11 Comments/in /by

I guess the Lindsay Clancy trial has put an end to that whole thing about a woman being president. Clancy has become a feminist hero for slaughtering her three children, whose names, in case anyone cares, were Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.

For that brave response to “postpartum depression,” she’s attracted hundreds of female admirers, who stand petulantly outside the courthouse in pink T-shirts, demanding her acquittal.

When Muslims pull this crap, blaming their gang rapes on the trauma of being asylum seekers, we’re not as understanding. But when women claim mental anguish from giving birth, we’re supposed to treat it as if it’s a disease as real as cancer and blame the doctors for not dispensing a magic pill to cure the batty lady.

Whether Lindsay has postpartum psychosis, is bipolar or a witch, to quote another witch, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” She still twisted an exercise band around the neck of her 3-year-old, his little legs kicking, then strangled her 5-year-old daughter until she went limp, before proceeding to garrote her 8-month-old baby.

A woman’s work is never done!

The pink ladies seem to think that if enough of them say, That could have been me, everyone will shout in unison, LET THAT POOR WOMAN GO! as opposed to, No. Woman. President. Ever. Thus, the organizer of the pink ladies, Renee Kimball, said of Clancy, “Any one of us could be sitting in her chair.” Okay, fine. But then none of you should ever be sitting in a chair at the Resolute Desk.

I note that there were no men in pink T-shirts at the trial of John List, though he surely suffered from the depression that many men face after losing a job. This meek accountant was the sole breadwinner for his mother, wife and three children. Then he got fired and had to accept lower-paying work—a humiliation so great he hid it from his family. The prospect of financial and reputational ruin led him to take out three mortgages on their 19-room mansion, declare bankruptcy, steal from his mother’s bank account and, finally, massacre his entire family and disappear to start a new life.

When the law caught up to him 18 years later (thanks to “America’s Most Wanted”), no one sympathized with his mental illness. No New York Times op-eds explained that men can experience “hormonal shifts” after job loss, leading to “hallucinations, delusions and paranoia.” No claims of “postjobtum psychosis” or maudlin accounts of men who “seem to be coping when, in fact, they are drowning.”

When women kill family members, it’s the fault of their hormones, “postpartum depression,” the pharmaceutical industry or battered women syndrome. But when men kill family members, it’s because of their toxic masculinity or patriarchal sense of entitlement.

Until five minutes ago, citing women’s hormones as a reason they couldn’t be president was the most retrograde misogyny imaginable. Today, Lindsay’s legion of supporters think hormones should excuse a triple homicide. Trump should try invoking hormones to explain the Iran War.

Last week in New York City, another woman who knocked off her kids was found “not responsible” because she was in a state of psychosis when she stabbed her two sons with kitchen shears, then drowned them in a bathtub. She’d been prescribed psychotropics but didn’t take them. Instead, she smoked marijuana daily, which happens to triple the risk of developing psychosis, as hundreds of studies have shown.

On one hand, we legalize pot, and on the other, we say you’re not responsible if it turns you into a psycho killer. (Was that a decision made by a woman on the rag?)

These shape-shifting Girl Power types use self-diagnosed psychiatric illnesses to escape responsibility for their barbaric crimes, but then go around crowing about how much tougher they are than men. Men are the quitters. (The kind of quitters who pay off their wives’ student loans, then work themselves to an early grave.)

At least that’s according to Lindsay Crouse who, in a recent Times op-ed, pushed the idea that, “Boys are like orchids. They are fragile and protected.” But girls “are like dandelions—surprisingly tough.”

Other than her own gripes, Ms. Crouse’s only evidence for superior female grit came from the 2018 Boston Marathon, beset with rain, hail and freezing temperatures. “I noticed, and then confirmed,” she wrote, “that women endured at higher rates than men.”

These results took her by storm, so of course she wrote a Times op-ed about it, touting women’s exceptional ability to “persevere in exceptionally miserable circumstances.” (And that’s despite being “discouraged from being athletic and competitive.”)

In fact, the study showed that 95.4% of men who started the race finished it, compared to 96.4% of the women. Crouse is claiming that out of a field of 27,000 runners, she actually noticed that 695 men quit, whereas only 439 women did? And she wrote not one, but two boastful columns about women’s amazing resilience on the basis of what is basically a rounding error?

Besides self-esteem, one area where women outperform men is in killing their newborns. It’s the only murder category where they do. Go, Girl Team!

These self-admiring women, who never tire of telling the world that females are stronger than men, but also have it much harder, could be laughed at, except they now form the base of one of our major political parties. We won’t be able to get rid of them as easily as Lindsay Clancy got rid of her kids.

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTER