Ep. 1183 - The Plot By LGBT Activists To Stigmatize Sanity And Normalcy
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, LGBT activists have been pushing the word "cisgender" to describe normal people who identify as the sex that they actually are. Elon Musk says that the word will now be considered a slur on Twitter. He's right that it is a slur, but it's also a psy-op. Part of a plot hatched decades ago by pedophiles and other depraved lunatics to stigmatize normalcy. We'll discuss. Also, we have the latest on the story of the lost submersible that set out to explore the wreckage of the Titanic. In our Daily Cancellation we'll deal with the story of the life coach who learned to love herself by abandoning her cancer stricken husband.
Ep.1183
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Want to work at The Daily Wire? For more information, click here and select “Careers”: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Get 25% of your DailyWire+ membership: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
EnviroKlenz - Save 10% off your EnviroKlenz home air purification unit.
Promo code WALSH at http://www.EKPURE.com
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month. Use promo code Walsh at checkout! https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, LGBT activists have been pushing the word cisgender to describe normal people who identify as the sex that they actually are.
Elon Musk says that the word will now be considered a slur on Twitter.
He's right that it is a slur, but it's also more than that.
It's part of a plot hatched decades ago by pedophiles and other depraved lunatics to stigmatize normalcy.
We'll discuss that.
Also, we have the latest on the story of the lost submersible that set out to explore the wreckage of the Titanic.
In our daily cancellation, we'll deal with the story of the life coach Who learned to love herself by abandoning her cancer-stricken husband.
I'm talking about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
I say a lot of things that make a lot of people angry, as you've probably noticed, and this tends to scare off advertisers.
That's why I'm so grateful to partners like Pure Talk, who stand behind me and my show, no matter the consequences they might face.
Pure Talk shares my values, which is why we've made them the official cell phone wireless partner of The Daily Wire.
That's not the only reason.
Pure Talk offers the most dependable 5G network in the US.
I use it myself.
Their plans are top tier, but at a fraction of the cost of AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile, you get unlimited talk, text, and unlimited data with a mobile hotspot for just $55 a month.
You vote how you spend your money, so stop...
Supporting woke wireless companies that don't support you.
Instead, go to puretalk.com slash Walsh.
You'll get great coverage and save while you're doing it.
When you go to puretalk.com slash Walsh, you'll save an additional 50% off your first month because they actually value you.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Pure Talk.
Wireless for Americans by Americans.
On Tuesday, two days ago, Elon Musk announced that, effective immediately, the words cis and cisgender will be considered slurs on Twitter.
Going forward, Musk said anyone who uses either of those words as part of a coordinated harassment campaign risks suspension on the platform.
Now, even apart from any targeted harassment campaign, Musk said tweets that disparage other users for being, quote, cis or, quote, cisgender will get less visibility on the platform.
Now, if you didn't graduate from a liberal arts college in the last six years or so, if you're fortunate enough not to receive regular lectures from your employer's HR department, what you just heard is probably sort of incomprehensible.
It might as well be another language, because it basically is.
What's a cisgender, you might be thinking, and why does any of that matter?
Is everything else going on in the world?
Who cares about some Twitter policy about a couple of made-up words?
Those are fair questions.
But the unfortunate reality is that for most Americans, the words cis and cisgender are now all over the place.
Even if you're somehow insulated from this insanity, your kids probably aren't.
Whether it's in elementary schools or colleges or workplaces, these words are presented as scientific terms with real, medically established meanings.
And all this happened, or seemed to happen, very suddenly.
Nobody could define cis or cisgender until just a few years ago.
You take a look at a chart of Google Trends, you'll notice that until around 2014, nobody on the planet had any interest in searching the internet for the word cisgender.
And then, all of a sudden, there was a huge spike.
And interest has only increased since then.
This isn't a phenomenon that we can just ignore, as tempting as that might be.
So, where does this come from?
Well, at first blush it's kind of hard to say.
What we do know is that coincidentally around the time that people suddenly started googling the word cisgender, which by the way simply means a normal person who identifies as the sex that they are.
That's what cisgender is.
If you're accused of being cisgender, what they're saying is, oh, you're normal.
But it was around this time that corporate media outlets began promoting the word and all of its variants.
Here's a video, just for example, from CBS News in 2017, explaining the terminology to the masses.
Listen.
Using the term cis is a term that says, I recognize that trans people exist.
So it's a very intentional term that demonstrates awareness, and I would say care, to say that trans people matter.
So I know that when I talk to people and they say they're cis, they are recognizing me and they're recognizing everybody else in the transgender community.
Do you think that identifying as cisgender is something that everybody should do who identifies with their given gender at birth?
I think after some self-exploration, they should at least consider it if they believe themselves to be an ally for the LGBTQIA community.
So what CBS News is saying there in the clip is that anyone who willingly calls himself a cisgender person is someone who believes that, quote, trans people matter.
They're allies of the LGBTQ community.
Which, by the way, notice this as well.
What trans people are insisting is that you change the way you describe them in order to affirm them, right?
We know that.
You have to change your perception of them and thus of reality, really, to affirm them.
But it goes farther than that because they also want you to change the way you describe yourself for the sake of affirming them.
So, your own perception of yourself and the way that you talk about yourself must be changed for their sake.
Which means that in the clearest possible terms, CBS is admitting that this is not a biological designation.
It has no basis in science.
It's a signaling mechanism.
It tells you the politics of the person who uses the word.
If someone says they're cisgender, it's the equivalent of seeing pronouns in their Twitter bio.
At the very least, you know they're not voting for Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump.
But what about people who don't voluntarily call themselves cisgender?
What are we to make of them?
Well, within about a year of that CBS video, NBC News put out a video that addresses the non-believers, you know, the heretics who still have not gotten with the program.
Watch this and see if you can detect the change in tone as compared with the CBS footage from a few months before it.
Watch.
Gender identity is like a game show, and doctors are the contestants.
When each of us are born, a doctor takes one look at us and makes a guess about what our gender identity will be.
Hmm.
Well, I see a penis, so I think that this baby will grow up to be a man.
Did I get it right?
If you're cisgender, it means that the doctor guessed your gender identity correctly at birth.
That you actually like the letter that the doctor put on your birth certificate when you were born.
If you're trans, though, it probably went more like this.
Ah, well, this baby has a vagina, so I'm gonna guess that she will grow up to be a woman.
Did I get it?
Dang it!
I knew I should have guessed genderqueer!
The thing about cisgender people is that a lot of y'all like to act like you're the normal ones, but I've got news for you.
There's no such thing as a normal gender.
Cis people just got lucky.
The doctor guessed your gender correctly when you were a baby, so you grew up in a world that treated you as you wanted to be treated.
But that doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, a large part of the difference between cis people and trans people comes down to a guess that a doctor made when we were babies.
Yes, biology is a game show.
You see, the doctor just guesses what gender you are.
It's totally random.
It's not based on anything.
And then, of course, the key quote, which is the thing about cisgender people is a lot of y'all like to act like you're the normal ones, but I've got news for you.
There's no such thing as a normal gender.
You just got lucky.
OK, there is.
And the key part of that is there is no such thing as normal.
If I had to summarize the LGBT cult's agenda, you know, its mantra in one sentence, that would be it.
There is no such thing as normal.
But the bitterness you can detect in that video isn't exactly subtle, and now a few years later, it's spilled out into the open.
Gender cultists all over the world openly mock and harass people for being, quote, cis.
If you're cis, they tell you that means you have privilege, you were born with advantages, and are therefore lesser.
It's like being born with the wrong skin color, as we know.
Through no fault of your own, you're worthy of scorn.
Taken together, the NBC and CBS clips send a clear message.
If you're not interested in cutting off your breasts or chopping off your penis or sterilizing yourself with hormones, then you're a member of a disfavored group.
The best you can do is be an ally and a promoter for people who hate you and who hate themselves.
And again, remember, everything about you should be restructured to affirm others.
Nothing about you is actually about you, you see.
It's all about them, always.
Your whole existence is all about affirming them.
When Elon Musk called CIS a slur, this is the phenomenon that he's referring to.
And in many respects, he's absolutely right.
The promotion of this word, which began out of nowhere just a few years ago, is clearly an effort to delegitimize hundreds of millions of Americans who did nothing wrong in their lives whatsoever.
That's the very definition of a slur.
On top of that, these words are also a way for true believers to, you know, their signposts, to signal their political allegiance, as well as their subservience.
Calling yourself cisgender, it's like flying a pride flag in front of your home.
Everyone understands the implications.
But the language in those NBC and CBS clips raised a lot of unanswered questions.
And here's the big one.
Why did corporate media decide to start promoting this newspeak all at once around six years ago?
What are they getting all this from?
Where are they getting it from?
What do they get out of it?
Did they just invent the words out of thin air?
Conspicuously enough, they don't say.
They don't tell you anything about the origins of this nonsense.
They never do.
Okay?
Of all the things that they're constantly insisting, what they never do is tell you, oh, here's where we got this from.
Here's who we got this from.
Instead, they parade activists in front of the camera to pretend to be doctors who tell you what to think about all this.
That's your first clue that the cis newspeak is more than a slur or a signaling mechanism.
In fact, it's part of a much larger PSYOP to denigrate normalcy and to undermine the basic moral tenets that have held American society together for generations.
That's the real point behind calling someone cis.
is to brand them as just one possible variation.
When you're called cis, you are, against your will, placed on a spectrum, along with trans and non-binary and other made-up identities.
You have been conscripted into all this, whether you like it or not.
Now, let's consider what CBS and NBC didn't show you in their little explainers on cisgenderism.
Look up the first mention of the word cisgender in recorded history.
All of corporate media somehow neglect to mention this part of it when they start pushing cis and cisgender, when they started doing this six years ago.
But we do know where it came from.
Because all these terms have originators.
They were coined by people.
We know who those people were.
Well, as Genevieve Gluck, who's the founder of the media outlet Redux, explained this week, the term cisgender originates with a German sexologist and physician named Volkemar Sigusch.
And he came up with the term cissexual, which then evolved into cisgender, in a 1991 publication called Transsexuals and Our Nosomorphic View.
And he wrote, quote, Speaking of cissexuals, if they are transsexuals, logically there must be cissexuals.
One is not to be thought without the other at all.
I've allowed myself to introduce the terms cissexualism, cissexuals, cisgender, etc.
So he's the guy who came up with it.
That's where it comes from.
Who is Volkmar Sagash?
He's considered one of the most influential figures of the sexual revolution.
He's also on the record saying that pedophiles have a, quote, enlightened mental state.
Quote, this is him now, quote, it's been my experience that you can reach your objective with what I would call kind-hearted, informed, and enlightened patients, in the sense that they don't lose their desire, but that they no longer have physical contact with children.
That's a quote from the grandfather of the cis terminology, saying that when a patient tells you he wants to have sex with children, the objective is to make sure that he doesn't lose his desire.
That's not the full extent of Sigusch's perversions.
Dagmar Herzog, who wrote Sex After Fascism, explained that Sigusch also argued in favor of exposing children to pornography.
As Herzog put it, "Volkmar Segest and Gunter Schmidt argued provocatively that the representation
of sex per se did no damage to youth or children, and that the kind of pornography in which
sex was represented without prejudices as a pleasure-filled social activity is exactly
the kind that one could, without worries, give to children and adolescents."
So you had people back then arguing for exposing children to pornography, which is exactly
what's happening in schools right now.
Interesting.
It's almost like none of this is a coincidence.
It's almost like this has been an agenda that's been in place for decades.
Sagash went on to argue that, quote, adding taboos to childish eroticism creates what we all want to prevent, sexual violence.
And Sagash went on to say, quote, There's nothing wrong with pedophilia in the sense of the word that is against liking even loving children.
The sensuality that spontaneously unfolds between child and adult is something wonderful, he says.
Nothing can remind us more intensely of the paradises of childhood.
Nothing is pure and more harmless than this eroticism of the body and the heart.
Childish eroticism is not only full of delights, it's also necessary.
He wrote.
Now, this is the guy who invented the fake terms cis and cisgender that you're now told to take very seriously.
Every single person who unironically uses these terms, they are speaking off of a script that was assigned to them by a pedophile.
Is that a coincidence?
Well, if you're tempted to think that it is, you should know that Sagash is not an outlier.
The left's entire sexual agenda, along with many of the buzzwords they use, All of it was invented by pedophiles and demented sexologists, many of them German as it happens, in the 20th century.
That's where it all comes from.
Consider Sagash's contemporary, the Berlin-based sexologist Helmut Kentler.
Now, around the same time that Sagash and his colleagues were arguing that children should be exposed to pornography, Kentler placed foster children in the homes of pedophiles that he knew personally.
He intentionally placed these children in the homes of pedophiles.
Here's one documentary on YouTube that explained the quote.
Study.
Watch.
Believing strongly in the link between emancipation and maturity, he then pitched a prominent study that continued to shape his career.
This study initially involved taking three troubled youths from foster care with the consent of their parents.
It claimed that the extended period of time away from their family would help to guide them onto a straighter path.
He also held the belief that this arrangement would help the childless adults learn to become more loving foster parents.
After his death in 2008, however, several allegations started to seep out of the woodwork, stemming from first-hand statements of the afflicted youths themselves.
Kentler, under the disguise of rehabilitation, had placed them with known paedophiles in hopes that the affection shown to them would help establish a mental relationship.
Now, Kentler's experiment was not rejected by the medical community or political leaders in Berlin.
In fact, the Berlin government endorsed the whole thing.
In the 1980s, the German parliament invited Kentler to speak about his findings.
Kentler reported that, quote, these people, meaning the adults, only endured these moronic boys because they were in love and infatuated with them, unquote.
Now, none of that bothered politicians in Germany.
Kentler wasn't dragged out of parliament in handcuffs.
The German government celebrated what he did.
Nearly everything the left says about sexuality and gender can be traced back to this depraved community of 20th century sexologists and psychologists.
We've already talked plenty about Alfred Kinsey who worked with pedophiles to conduct quote-unquote research on quote-unquote children's orgasms.
And John Money, who forced children to perform sex acts in front of him.
And then there's Magnus Hirschfeld, who opened up one of the first so-called transgender clinics.
He also believed in eugenics and sterilizing his own patients.
There's also Erwin Gorbrandt, the sex reassignment surgeon who also conducted hypothermia experiments on prisoners in concentration camps.
And he's a favorite of trans activists, too.
All of these men had out-in-the-open agendas to normalize depravity and stigmatize normalcy.
It took decades to achieve it, but they did finally achieve it.
And along the way, every physician in the country recognized what was happening.
John Oliven, for example, is the first person known to use the word transgender.
And here's how he described the phenomenon of transgenderism in the 1965 book Sexual Hygiene and Pathology.
Here's what he said, quote, Where the compulsive urge reaches beyond female vestments and becomes an urge for gender change, transvestitism becomes transsexualism.
The term is misleading.
Actually, transgenderism is what is meant, because sexuality is not a major factor in primary transvestitism.
Oliven went on to note that transgenders often amounted to, quote, "...desperately pleading primary transvestites who may also employ pseudoscientific reasoning or even threats of suicide.
These transvestites have turned to veterinarians and to abortionists with a request for castration, and a few, to force the surgeon's hand, have crudely amputated all or part of their scrotum.
However, others have mutilated themselves in an extreme, near-psychotic panic state."
Now, you don't hear John Oliven's descriptions of transgenderism very much anymore, nor do you hear much about Virginia Prince, who's widely credited with popularizing the term transgender in the late 1960s.
Who was Prince?
Well, he was a self-loathing homosexual who despised women and other gay people.
In their book, Richard Eakins and David King wrote that Prince's organizations always excluded, quote, bondage or masochistic people, amateur investigators, curiosity seekers, homosexuals, transsexuals, or emotionally disturbed people.
Now, this is the history that trans activists never tell you about.
All the terms they bombard you with, cis, trans, and so on, were concocted decades ago by the most contemptible and perverted members of society.
None of this is an accident.
Ultimately, the plan is to redefine all of human existence through the LGBT lens.
Cisgender rebrands normal men and women as just one variation, one gender identity, We all end up in the pride rainbow, whether we like it or not.
That's the overarching goal.
It has been since the beginning, which is why we see this everywhere.
This week, Men's Health pushed the term gynosexual to describe men who are attracted to women, otherwise known as normal straight guys.
Now you're a gynosexual.
Put a G in the LGBT acronym.
Meanwhile, the guy who invented the hideous progress pride flag, which is like the most recent pride flag, which is even uglier than the original, he came out with a new variation that now includes autistic people.
Autistic people are now part of the LGBT club.
One by one, each group is drafted into the cause, dragged into it, kicking and screaming.
They did this with intersex people years ago.
Suddenly, people unlucky enough to be born with genital defects find themselves as members of the LGBT club.
They have their own pride flag.
Whether they wanted one or not, they got it.
All of this traces back to the godfathers of this movement who were, almost to a man, child-abusing perverts.
Who had an open agenda to stigmatize normalcy, to sexualize children.
That was always the goal from the very beginning.
All of these people, this is what they wanted to do.
These are mad scientists who invented all of the concepts that trans activists push today.
Invented them mostly, again, to normalize and excuse their own sexual proclivities and perversions.
The terminology you're bombarded with, it's not just a slur or a signaling mechanism.
I mean, it is that.
But it's also part of an effort to destroy the foundational elements of this country.
An effort that was invented by some of the most evil people this world has ever seen.
And it's been going on for a very long time.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Are you tired of breathing in polluted air in the comfort of your own home and
you want to safeguard your family's health and well-being?
Well, with our new friends at EnviroCleanse, you'll never have to worry again.
EnviroCleanse is an in-home air purifying unit designed to destroy cold and flu viruses, allergy inflaming toxins, mold, and even more.
With EnviroCleanse, they promise far fewer colds, allergies, and better sleep.
They even give you a free air quality monitor to test the differences in your own home.
If all home air purifiers are the same, well then why did the U.S.
Department of Defense select EnviroCleanse to protect and purify the air on board our Navy ships?
EnviroCleanse sent us our own unit that we use now with having six kids and a wife in the house.
We got a full house all the time.
The last thing any of us need is to be getting sick.
My kids want to be outside all summer long and thanks to EnviroCleanse we don't have to worry about getting sick.
Air purifiers come in all sizes, colors, and prices to fit every budget.
They offer additional products like surface cleaner and laundry detergent so you can stay protected in every aspect of your home.
Breathe in pure air and live a healthier life.
Visit ekpure.com and use code WALSH for 10% off your EnviroCleanse home air purification unit.
Right now, you also get free air quality monitors plus fast free shipping.
You get all of that.
That's a $150 savings.
ekpure.com.
Code Walsh, that's ekpure.com, promo code Walsh.
Delaware has the latest on the story of the trapped submersible.
Time ran out for the passengers on the Titan submersible on Thursday morning, according to estimates from officials.
According to the U.S.
Coast Guard, the oxygen supply on the submersible, which aimed to see the wreckage of the Titanic, would evaporate fully at roughly 7.08 a.m.
on Thursday, which is long past now, of course.
Joyce Murray, Canada's Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, said, we have to retain hope as part of what we're doing as a human community to find the explorers and bring them to safety.
There were experts who cautioned against the premature determination of the exact time the auction would be depleted completely.
And of course, you know, the assumption is that auction will be depleted.
This morning.
But we actually we don't we don't really know that.
That also that also rests on the assumption that if anybody is still alive in the submersible that all of them are alive.
And if they're not all alive then you know then oxygen lasts longer.
So there's there's of course still a lot that's very much that's very much unknown.
And, you know, they do finally have other submarines on the scene, ones that have mechanical arms and that sort of thing that could attach a cable to the submersible to lift it up, if they can even find it, if the thing hasn't imploded by now, which is, you know, there's a very good chance that it just imploded on descent and now it's in a million pieces and will never be found.
There's a good chance we'll never know exactly what happened.
But, obviously, hopefully they do find it.
You know, as we've been talking about this, and I talked about it yesterday, and I guess a couple points I wanted to make, or in some cases reiterate, and Yesterday, I was making the case that, to begin with, the response from not everybody, certainly, but many people in the public, the response to this whole story has been, like, extremely disturbing and a real sign of cultural rot and also spiritual rot within those people.
I mean, the people, their first instinct is to laugh about it, to gloat.
Now I understand there's gallows humor, there's morbid humor, there's always people that make jokes about tragic events, and that's one thing.
But then there are people who are happy about it.
Their instinctive reaction from the beginning was to gloat and be happy that this happened.
And they're largely happy because the people on the subversible were rich, and so therefore It's good that they died the worst imaginable death.
I mean, this is, um, it is, again, it's a, it's a sign that something is, you know, if you have that instinctive reaction, then you have to look within yourself because there's something has gone horribly wrong with you personally.
That should not be your immediate reaction to something like this.
And there's also been a lot of people that are just kind of dismissing the whole thing and saying, well, it's just rich people on a tourist excursion.
Yes, that's one way of looking at it, that these are rich people on a tourist trip, and even if that is what happened, it still is a tragedy, and we should still try to rescue them.
We still shouldn't be happy that it happened, and that's the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be explained.
But as I said yesterday, this is also, and I don't know why people are so resistant to this, this is also exploration.
These people are explorers.
I mean, when you go two and a half miles under the ocean, that counts as exploration.
Now, you could talk about what are their motives for doing it.
Oh, they're just doing it for bragging rights.
They're doing it out of hubris.
Okay, well, welcome to every explorer who's ever lived.
You know, there's always been, in the whole history of exploration, there's always been hubris and bragging rights and personal ambition and competition and all these things that have fueled people to do extraordinary things that most of us wouldn't ever even consider doing.
That's always part of it.
And another point, too, is that You know, I hear people say, well, this is rich people wasting their money.
You know, it's a $250,000 ticket to go to the bottom of the ocean.
Look at the rich people wasting their money.
You know, first of all, pound for pound, it's very likely that you have wasted more money, or at least, you know, if you look at your total income versus how much money you personally have wasted, this applies to me as well.
As a percentage, you have very likely wasted more money than any of the rich people on that submersible.
So we're all guilty of wasting money.
And that's modern life.
We fill our lives and our homes with a whole bunch of crap we don't need, constantly finding new reasons to waste money.
We all do that.
And as your income increases, you just end up wasting more money.
But if you're not wasting as much money as a billionaire, it's probably just because you don't have that much money to waste.
But you certainly waste almost all the money you can waste, so it's sort of a pointless thing to get all high and mighty about.
But also, of all the things that a rich person can waste their money on, I think this is one of the better things.
I mean, the world's a better place if you have rich people that are motivated to do eccentric and crazy things like, okay, they want to go to the bottom of the ocean, they want to fly into space.
There are a lot of things that the elites can spend their money on, and do spend their money on, that have a very destructive effect on society and on our culture.
That's not one of those things.
Okay, I wish this is what all the billionaires were doing.
And this is also, you know, rich people spending their money to go to space or go to the ocean.
This is what is going to fund and drive innovation going into the future.
This is what does it.
So I don't, as I said yesterday, I don't understand the instinctive reaction that people have.
And the first thing that I think when I hear someone does something like this, I have respect for it because, you know, the only reason, I mean, The idea of seeing what the bottom of the ocean looks like is cool.
So I like the idea of it.
Being able to see the Titanic at the bottom of the ocean.
That's a very fascinating idea.
I would never do it though because I would be afraid.
I'd be afraid to do it.
Because exactly this.
I wouldn't want this to happen.
So generally the way that I'm wired is that when When someone does something that, in theory, I think is cool, but I wouldn't do because I'm afraid, I respect that.
That takes boldness.
It takes some measure of courage.
Now, there's also the assumption that I keep hearing from people that, well, these people are stupid.
They didn't understand the risks.
They got on that thing.
They thought they'd be fine.
They thought they'd be safe.
Why would you assume they didn't understand the risks?
I mean, unless they're actually insane, I think we can assume, and they had to sign all the waivers saying, hey, this can definitely kill you.
I think we can assume that they did know the risks and yet they did it anyway.
There are people that are willing to do it.
I think for some in our culture, that's such a foreign idea.
It's such a foreign concept that you would do something risky knowing that you could lose your life in the process.
It's so foreign to some people that they just assume that the ones who are stuck on the Submersible didn't even know what they were getting themselves into.
I think we can assume that they did, and yet they did it anyway.
Which, personally, I respect.
Alright, moving on to...
This Daily Wire, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines delivered a fact check in real time to a Democrat witness during a Wednesday hearing.
Gaines, who also testified during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled, Protecting Pride, Defending the Civil Rights of LGBTQ Plus Americans, disputed the claim made by the Human Rights Campaign President Kelly Robinson that biological males had no inherent advantages when it came to athletics.
No inherent advantages if you're a biological male against females.
This was the claim made by the President Human Rights Campaign, and here's how Riley Gaines responded to that.
Watch.
You don't believe that a biological male has a physical advantage in sports over a biological female?
Not as a definitive statement.
Give me an example.
Well, no, I don't think How many female members of the NBA do you see?
Well, I can say that, you know, there's been this news article about men that think that they could beat Serena Williams in tennis, right?
That they think that they could actually score a point on her.
And it's just not the case.
She is stronger than them.
What's your experience, Ben?
Male, female.
Both Serena and Venus lost to the 203rd ranked male tennis player, which they're phenoms for women.
My experience, my husband, he swam at University of Kentucky as well.
In terms of accolades and in terms of national ranking, I was a much better swimmer than him.
He could kick my butt any day of the week without trying.
So that's a great moment from Riley Gaines.
Also, it's a moment of Stating the obvious and this is one of the this is why I appreciate Riley Gaines She's she's she's good.
Obviously a very forceful and compelling advocate for Sanity on this issue, but this is one thing That I think people who are on team sanity when they get when they you know When they when they decide they want to start speaking up about all this This is a challenge that I think Many people don't expect, they don't expect it to be a challenge, which is that, you know, explaining something so obvious, there's actually, it can be difficult at first to explain something so obvious.
When you have someone challenging one of the most obvious realities of life, it can almost throw you for a loop.
So when you have someone sitting in front of you saying, males don't have any advantages against females in sports, That's inherently absurd.
Everybody knows that's ridiculous.
And if they ask, well, what's proof?
What's the proof?
Like, what evidence do we have that males are better than females?
Everywhere.
Look anywhere.
Just look around you.
The proof is all around you.
Look at any actual sporting event, almost any competition, especially any sporting event where you can measure anything like a race, especially, and you can actually measure somebody's performance in a really quantifiable way.
And then you can take the men's performance and you have those numbers and you can compare them to females.
And on average, the men are always going to be faster and better and stronger.
Always?
You know, like the fastest woman at the Olympics in any race has never been faster than the fastest man.
Like the gold medal winning woman in any race in the Olympics has never been faster than the gold medal winning man.
Now, of course, The woman who wins the gold medal in the Olympics in the 100-meter dash or whatever the event is, is she going to be faster than some men?
Sure.
Yeah, if you take any average guy who hasn't even gone for a jog in 25 years and you put him on the track against that Olympic sprinter on the female side, he's going to lose.
But we're talking about averages.
We're talking about the inherent advantages that men have over women.
It's one of those things that's so incredibly obvious.
And the other challenge, too, is that you're trying to explain something to someone who already knows, okay?
They already know that you're right and they're wrong.
You're trying to explain a truth to them, describe something to them that they already recognize.
But Riley Gaines did a great job there.
And that's why I also, as I always say, you have to keep it very simple.
Because on the left, when they're making some kind of claim that males don't have an advantage over females or whatever it is, they obviously can't support that claim.
They have no evidence for that whatsoever.
All they can do is obfuscate Make everything more obscure.
Try to make the picture foggier and hazier.
Kind of drag you away from the main point and get you lost in the weeds over here.
And that's why when you're dealing with these people, the goal should always be to just keep it simple.
Stick with the basic facts.
Don't let them drag you off to some irrelevant detour.
Stick with the facts.
Okay, another story I want to mention briefly.
Daily Wire reports average math and reading test scores for 13-year-olds in the United States hit the lowest level in decades, according to a recent national long-term trend assessment released on Wednesday.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress reported the declining education levels occurred during the pandemic.
However, the downward trajectory began at least a decade before government officials and school districts shuttered classroom doors and switched to online learning in response to COVID.
So this is that that's why it's really important when you hear about all these disastrous outcomes in the public school system and test scores are declining and it's just every week there's another report just like this and very often they try to blame it all on the pandemic which to begin with that's wrong because the pandemic didn't do any of this okay there's nothing that happened in the pandemic that would prevent kids from learning to read Okay, the COVID didn't do that.
It was the government's response to COVID that did that.
But even that is not the explanation because all of these trends, the decline in performance, among kids in grade school, that's a trend that dates back
years and years and years.
It accelerated during the pandemic. I mean, when you shut down all the schools, and
crucially, you shut down the schools and then try to replace the schools with online, with Zoom.
Now, if you shut down the schools and then everybody goes into a homeschool environment,
well, then the kids end up, educationally, they end up better because the education you get in
get in homeschool is far superior to what they get in public school.
But that's not what happened for a lot of these kids.
You know, it's not like they seamlessly went from public schools are shut down and now they're being homeschooled.
No, they went from that to all of that is being replaced by the screen, you know, by Zoom meetings basically.
And that had the effect of accelerating all these trends, but these were trends that were in place long before that.
And if we were a culture that, if we were a serious culture in any way, this would be a huge scandal that we would be talking about and focusing on.
And the scandal being the total failure of the education system to do the one thing it's supposed to do, which is to educate the next generation of Americans.
It is completely failing in that regard.
Every time we see one of these dumb guy on the street interviews, and someone's out on a college campus, or they're just out in a street corner somewhere, and they're talking to random young adults who are walking by and asking them, who was the first president of the United States?
Or, you know, can you name four states in our country?
You know, how many continents are on the globe?
And they're being stumped by that.
And we all kind of laugh about it.
Makes sense to laugh because it's absurd, but at the same time, that again, it's a tragedy actually.
It's a testament to the fact that our education system has completely failed.
And yet we basically, this is something that every once in a while people look over at it and they say, oh well that's a problem, that's unfortunate.
But then nothing is ever done about it.
You know, it's just like the sex abuse epidemic in public schools.
That's been going on for years.
The Department of Education, like, 20 years ago, did a report showing that sex abuse in public school by public school staff members is an epidemic.
It's like thousands of cases of it.
And even 20 years ago, the Department of Education admitted that.
And we see the stories that come up.
We're all familiar with these kinds of stories.
Public school teachers being arrested for child porn or abusing their students.
And yeah, people pretend to care about it, and any time we hear a new story or a new scandal, we glance over at it, and then we just get back to whatever we were doing.
And I think the reason is that our society doesn't want to face the total collapse of the education system And what a disaster it has been for children, a disaster in pretty much every way imaginable.
We don't want to face that because of the implications, because of what it means.
And what it means individually for a lot of parents is that if you in any way can, you should be pulling your kids out of that system.
Well, but if you do that, then that's like major sacrifices you have to make in your life.
You have to completely restructure your life.
Because modern society is basically structured around the public school system.
Around this idea that you put your kids on the bus at 7.30 in the morning, they're gone, and they've got daycare, the public school system is a glorified daycare system, and then they come back at 4 o'clock.
And you've got all that time in between to do what you want, to go to work.
And our society, the whole society is kind of structured around that.
If you take public school out, you have to drastically change the way that you do things, make some major sacrifices.
People don't want to do that, so instead we look away, and we let the public school off the hook, which we have to stop doing.
Let's get to the comment section.
Pro-life efforts, which are more important now than ever, are booming.
You heard that right.
Despite the narrative, pro-lifers actually are not going away.
They have increased in number.
40 Days for Life is changing hearts and minds in the most blue pro-abortion states in the country.
They've had a record number of locations since Roe was overturned.
They grew in both volunteers and locations, with about 1 million volunteers in 1,500 cities.
They hold peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
This success has come with new unwanted attention, as you'd imagine, from the federal government and the DOJ in regards to free speech.
As one of the largest pro-life organizations in the world, no one is in a better position than 40 Days for Life to end abortion in each state in a post-Roe America.
You can help them fight the ongoing legal battles of protecting free speech for their volunteers, including Mark, the 40 Days for Life volunteer who had his house raided by the FBI.
Help them defend free speech by giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount at 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
Extremism 101 says, about time you came back.
Listen, I know what you're doing is probably important, but is my routine not important also?
Is my lunch time spent with you not important?
I expect to see your response during the comment section.
A real sweet daddy answers questions like these.
You know, I understand that.
I can understand the trauma that you are suffering as well by my repeated absences.
I'll probably have more to say about this soon, but I will say that, yes, I'm aware that I've been missing a lot of shows recently.
And that's not what I would want.
I like to think I'm usually pretty reliable.
I do the show, come hell or high water.
But I am working on some major projects that I wish I could say more about, but I can't.
But there's a reason for it, I'll tell you that.
Here's what I can say.
When I miss the show, it's not, I'm not just like lounging on my couch having a good time.
As much as I wish maybe that was the case.
We are, we're working on some things.
It's all I can say for right now, but there is a, there is a reason for the absences, and it will all make sense soon enough.
And I think you also know, and I, and I, and I, you know, I think you'll give me this at least, that historically, When I say, I've got big things coming up, I'm working on a project, we deliver on that.
So if I say we're working on big projects, we are.
Let's see, Ryan says, regarding the Daily Cancellation, I'm certain there's more to the story than Liz Gilbert just shelving her book.
I'm guessing her publisher decided not to release the book and gave her the option to act like it was her idea.
This screams of protecting her ego.
Yeah, that might be the case, but then the irony is that she pretended it was her idea to protect her ego and to save face, but it has the opposite effect.
If you really want to save face, it's like what I would do in that situation, if I had written a book and the publisher said, we're not going to release it because the dumbest people on the internet are offended for the dumbest reason.
Then I would come out and say, this was not my decision, I think this is insane, however, I can't release the book by, you know, I can't release it myself, the publisher owns it, and so there's nothing I can do, but this is crazy and I hate it.
You know, that's what I would do.
So that just makes it even worse.
If this was not Gilbert's idea to shelve her book, and yet she took quote-unquote credit for it anyway.
That makes her stupid as well as a coward at the same time.
John says, my difficulty with having tons of sympathy with the people in the sub is that it was built to Chrysler levels of quality when it needed to be built to Lexus levels of quality.
Yeah, I think that's well established.
Now, not that I... Look, I'm also... I admit I'm not an expert in underwater submersibles and how they should be built and all that, so...
That's also been funny to me, see all these submarine experts on Twitter all of a sudden giving these in-depth critiques of how the submersible was built.
This wasn't built up to snuff at all.
What the hell do you know about building a submersible?
But based on what I've heard, that would seem to be the case, that it was not built to the level of quality that it should be.
But then again, you know, the CEO Passionately Stoic says, exploring.
the ship. So he if this thing went down and they're all dead then he went down
with the ship and so he obviously believed in what he was doing and if if
there was a risk being taken he took the risk on himself as well. Got to respect
that I think. Passionately stoic says exploring I thought there were tourists
paying for a thrill. Yeah again it's there's also a kind of a fine line
sometimes between those two things.
Tourists paying for a thrill, exploring.
Those are not always distinct things.
And again, going back to the whole history of exploration.
In any exploratory expedition, there are always these criticisms.
Like, well, what is this really accomplishing?
You know, how does this advance humanity in any way?
This is really all about your ego.
This is your arrogance.
You're just thrill-seeking.
You're wasting money.
But pretty much any exploratory expedition that has ever been launched in history, there have been those criticisms of it.
And I'm not saying that them going down to try to visit the Titanic is an exploratory expedition on the same level of, you know, the great explorers of history.
But I do think that, yeah, by definition, going two and a half miles under the ocean is exploring.
I mean, you are exploring something.
I think if you looked up the definition of exploring, you would find that going two and a half miles under the ocean does qualify.
Now whether you think it was a pointless exploration expedition or whatever, you can put whatever adjective you want onto it, that's your opinion.
But yes, I do think it counts.
It's not exactly the same.
If you're taking a cruise to the Bahamas, it would be a real stretch to say that you're on an exploration expedition.
But this is not that.
Okay, when you're going to a place that almost nobody has ever been.
I think it counts.
Tara says, these people paid a lot of money to explore that which has already been explored.
I don't see anything there to respect.
Once again, I mean, have you?
I'm sure you have spent money in your life to go to many places where other people have already been.
It's also funny to me, we kind of talked about this in the cancellation yesterday, but because we're talking about the Eat, Pray, Love woman and the author of that book.
And so many people are kind of like turning up their noses at this and making fun of these people for going two and a half miles under the ocean thinking that it's some sort of significant expedition.
How many of those people have gone to the Bahamas or to Jamaica or to France or something and then come back talking about how it was a life-changing journey, you know?
When you went to an actual tourist destination.
And yet for this, we could say, oh, that's silly.
Other people have been there.
Yeah, the whole history of humanity, there's been like 200 people that have been that deep in the ocean.
But other people have been there, so there's no point in going back.
Grant Canyon University is an affordable, private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
Praised for its culture of community giving and impact, Grand Canyon University integrates the free market system,
welcoming Christian worldview into over 320 academic programs
with more than 260 of these programs online.
Grand Canyon University's online programs are designed to make earning your degree easy and
accessible no matter your age or stage in life.
So why wait?
If you're ready to take your education to the next level, find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Also, despite the lackluster economy, the Daily Wire is thriving.
Not only that, we are hiring as well.
We're currently looking for a motion designer to join our fast-growing creative department.
You'll work alongside designers and video editors with direction from the Director of Video Advertising to make animations for trailers, promos, and brand ads.
The motion designer will take great art and make it excellent by adding movement to it.
You'll need to be able to take input and direction from supervisors and thrive on receiving creative and constructive feedback as well.
Bonus points for experience working in 2D, 3D, and or Cinema 4D and illustration.
The position is based in Nashville, Tennessee.
For more information and to apply, visit dailywire.com slash careers.
It's dailywire.com slash careers today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation day, we turn to a woman named Yana Fry, whose current occupation is life coach.
This is not the first time that a life coach has been featured in this segment.
As you know, if someone calls themselves a life coach, it's a surefire sign that their own life is in utter shambles.
When you think about somebody hitting rock bottom, you probably imagine a person lying in the gutter, disheveled, passed out, drunk, homeless.
That's not quite rock bottom.
There is a level deeper, more debased and pathetic and disgraceful than that, and that's the level where you become a life coach.
People who can't do, teach.
Which means that if you don't know how to live a successful life, you teach other people how to live a successful life.
Except that your advice is sure to be quite terrible.
Before we get to the actual reason why Yana is the subject of our cancellation today, I want to share, just for context I guess, one little morsel of her wisdom.
This is the first thing that popped up when I searched her name on YouTube.
So I didn't do a lot of digging, but I think this is good enough.
It gives us a feel for who this person is.
Here she is delivering some real important life coaching.
Listen.
You are the one living and writing your story.
There is no one else.
You are the only person who is responsible for all the pain and pleasure in your life.
You are the only one who has the power to create or destroy everything around you.
And the sooner we all remember it, realize it, the faster we can restore peace in our society.
You are the only one who has the power to create or destroy everything in your life.
Not only is this obviously nonsense, just a lot of self-affirmation mumbo-jumbo, it also sounds like the kind of thing that a comic book supervillain would say to himself in the mirror.
You are the only one with the power to destroy and create.
It evinces an extreme level of narcissism.
I mean, narcissism that verges into delusion.
That's something we should keep in mind as we move on to the story that has gone viral this week, centering around this woman.
The Daily Mail reports, quote, a woman who divorced her husband while he was suffering from testicular cancer has revealed why she has no regrets.
Yana Frye, a life coach from St.
Petersburg, Russia, who now lives in Singapore, got married when she was just 22 years old.
And looking back, she wishes she hadn't tied the knot before she was 30.
Her ex-husband, who was 15 years her senior, was diagnosed with testicular cancer three months into her marriage, and she stayed with him for another five years.
Even before his diagnosis, Jana said her husband was always one to drown in self-pity, and after years of mental anguish, she called it quits, much to her in-law's disdain.
I rushed into that marriage.
I don't think women should marry before 30.
We have no idea who we are, and we don't know what a good partner is for us, the 40-year-old explained.
Jana met her husband about a year before they tied the knot.
And while they had a good relationship, she believes it never stood a chance after he fell unwell because of the toll his illness took on them both.
Now, from here, we're told all about Yana's husband's cancer diagnosis, which obviously affected Yana herself most of all.
She is the main character.
She is the one with the power to create and destroy.
The whole universe revolves around her.
And now her husband's terminal illness revolves around her too.
His terminal illness was cramping her style, ruining her vibe.
The Daily Mail continues, People react in one of two ways to critical illnesses.
I've seen it over and over, she said.
The first type was how my husband, unfortunately, was.
The people who drown in self-pity.
The second type of people are those who are instead concerned with everyone around them.
Yes, how dare her husband pity himself because he had cancer?
He should have been pitying her instead.
You know, this marriage isn't big enough for two people to be pitied.
Continuing, quote, "Yana said that at the time, society was less aware of mental health,
so much so that even medical professionals never asked how she was coping.
I was in a state of shock."
When I first heard the diagnosis, it took me six months to even be able to say the word cancer, she said.
We saw different kinds of doctors.
Not a single person ever offered me help.
They never asked, do you need a support system?
Are you part of a counseling group?
I was hoping for the best with my husband's cancer, but then years went by.
I started to lose hope.
It was five years with all the treatments.
We started to change the dynamics within our relationship.
It wasn't until the fifth year that I started to think about leaving.
Yes, how dare those parents, how dare those doctors, you know, the cancer doctors, not ask her, they should begin with that.
Like, how's your mental, yeah, I mean, you're dying of cancer, but what about you?
How's your mental health?
How are you feeling?
I mean, all this, it's understandable though, isn't it?
I mean, she gave the guy five years to get over his annoying cancer phase, but he had the gall to continue being sick, even though his sickness was clearly impacting her mental health.
So she finally decided to file for divorce, reading again, quote, But I felt like I couldn't say anything.
When someone is dying next to you, you feel like you can't talk about your own well-being because you compare it to their suffering.
Yana said that everything changed for her when one of her friends took their own life, and she attended their open casket funeral, which brought home her own fragile mental state.
It was my first funeral, and it was very shocking.
In my mind at the time, suicide became an option, even though I had never considered that before.
I was in such a bad state, she explained.
It was very clear to me that if I didn't save myself, I was probably going to die.
So Jana made the decision to divorce her dying ex-husband, and it was an understandably difficult time for both of them.
His main focus was more and more about him.
At the beginning of his treatment, he was still checking in on me.
He felt even more pity for himself because of the divorce, she said.
Pretty egotistical of that guy.
He has cancer.
His wife leaves him.
That's no reason to get all upset.
Anyway, we're told that Yana left her husband, then he died, and she found out about it on Facebook, which was very offensive to her personally.
She insists that someone in her husband's family should have thought to reach out to the horrible wench who left him on his deathbed to personally alert her that the man she abandoned had passed away.
But because she was not personally told, she was once again the victim.
So you notice the theme playing out.
It's not very subtle.
Yana Frye is the victim of every misfortune that happens around her.
Even if it's not happening to her, she's still the main victim.
And everything that happens is really about her.
Her husband's cancer is about her.
Her friend's funeral was about her.
Her husband, or then her ex-husband's death was about her.
All about her, the goddess, who alone possesses the power to create and destroy.
And apparently, she chooses to destroy.
She destroyed her marriage, her vows, her husband's will to live.
A trail of destruction in her wake, which she has now brought into a new marriage, which she will, of course, also abandon the second that she detects that the focus has shifted, even for a moment, away from her.
And the only difference there is that the second husband will deserve to be abandoned by his wife, given that he married her knowing what a self-absorbed monster she is.
You get what you pay for, as they say.
Now, as for the lesson that Yana has learned from all this, it's exactly what you think the lesson would be.
Quote, I'm finally learning to love myself and accept myself for who I am, she said, revealing that she's now a stepmother to her second husband's son and hopes to have children of her own.
Yana is hoping that by sharing her experience, other people, especially women, will find the courage to do what is right for themselves, even if it comes at the cost of social disapproval.
I feel we, especially women, are just usually brought up in this mentality to serve others, but when you get a go against it, you learn a lot about resilience and self-awareness, she said.
You learn how to not crack under the pressure of the world.
Being so close to death has made me appreciate life much more.
Well, isn't that nice?
The horrible, agonizing death of her husband helped her to appreciate life and love herself.
So really, it was all worth it, when you think about it.
Now, I don't have to explain why this woman is awful.
I don't have to tell you that she's a narcissistic, soulless hobgoblin.
I don't have to explain that she is so self-absorbed that she has now collapsed in on herself like a dying star and turned into a black hole that obliterates everything in its orbit.
That all we can see.
The important point to take from this tragic tale, a story equal parts sad and revolting, is that it is the inevitable consequence of the love-yourself-first mentality that is shared by many people in modern culture.
Anyone who believes that the point of life is to pursue your own happiness first and foremost as an end to itself, And that the highest form of love is self-love, and that self-love is foundational, and that first you have to love yourself, and think about loving yourself before you can love anybody else.
When, of course, the reality is the opposite.
Stop thinking about yourself for five seconds.
Work on loving the people around you.
Loving and serving the people around you.
And if you do that, and you stop thinking about yourself, you're going to turn back one day and notice, oh, you know, I feel pretty good about myself, too.
That happens as a byproduct of focusing on loving other people.
But in our culture, we have it exactly backwards.
Focus on loving yourself first, and then you can love others.
And until you can love yourself, everyone else be damned.
But everybody with this mentality is no different from Yanna Fry.
If they haven't abandoned a cancer-stricken spouse, it's only because they haven't yet had a cancer-stricken spouse to abandon.
And if they did have a cancer-stricken spouse and they didn't abandon him, they did at least sulk and pout and emanate resentment and scorn.
Sacrificial love is a foreign concept to these people.
The idea of serving someone else, the idea of loving the other and giving of themselves is repulsive.
And this is the attitude that is intentionally instilled in children from a young age.
The attitude that many of them bring into adulthood and keep through their lives.
Destroying one relationship after another as they alienate everyone around them.
Now, we know that, of course, justice will come for Yanna Fry, as it does for all of these sorts of people.
It'll come when it's her turn to shuffle off this mortal coil.
And she looks around to find that there's no one there for her.
