Ep. 1195 - NBC News Totally Obliterates Trans Ideology By Accident
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, in a shocking turn of events, NBC News has published a lengthy article completely obliterating trans ideology. Of course it was entirely accidental. Also, despite his lies to the contrary, we now know that Joe Biden did get on the phone many times with his son's business partner's while he was Vice President. But, we're told, they were only talking about the weather. CNN says that more women are taking leadership positions in churches. I'll explain why this is not a new development, or a good one. And in our Daily Cancellation ,a new poll claims that 40 percent of black women are quitting jobs for the sake of their mental health. This is yet more proof that our society's focus on "mental health" is doing more harm than good.
Ep.1195
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Get Your Jeremy’s Hand Soap here: https://bit.ly/3q2CCIg
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month. Use promo code Walsh at checkout! https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
EnviroKlenz - Save 10% off your EnviroKlenz home air purification unit.
Promo code WALSH at http://www.EKPURE.com
Satellite Phone - Exclusive discount for my listeners!
http://www.sat123.com/Wash or call 941-955-1020.
- - -
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
Today on the Matt Wall Show, in a shocking turn of events, NBC News has published a lengthy article completely obliterating trans ideology.
Of course, it was entirely an accident, but still.
Also, despite his lies to the contrary, we now know that Joe Biden did get on the phone many times with his son's business partners while he was vice president, but we're told they were only talking about the weather, sure.
CNN says that more women are taking leadership positions in churches.
I'll explain why this is not a new development or a good one.
In our Daily Cancellation, a new poll claims that 40% of black women are quitting jobs for the sake of their mental health.
This is yet more proof that our society's focus on mental health is doing more harm than good.
Good. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
You know a company is looking out for you when they actually upgrade your service and
they don't charge you for it.
This is great news for new and current PureTalk customers.
PureTalk just added data to every plan and includes a mobile hotspot with no price increase whatsoever.
If you've considered PureTalk before but haven't made the switch, take a look again.
For just $20 a month, you'll get unlimited talk text and now 50% more 5G data plus their new mobile hotspot.
This is why I love PureTalk.
They are veteran-owned.
They only hire the best customer service team located right here in the great USA.
Most families are saving almost $1,000 a year while enjoying the most dependable 5G network in America.
Remember, you vote with how you spend your money, so stop supporting woke wireless companies that don't support you.
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.
It's not every day that a news article from a mainstream media outlet truly shocks you.
We're all used to predictable narratives at this point.
Most of it's just sort of noise.
But the other day, there was a very notable exception to this general rule.
An article published by NBC News of all places.
Just blew up the entire narrative of transgenderism out of nowhere.
NBC News came out with a well-researched in-depth piece that completely debunks the entire concept, eradicates the whole ideology, you might even say.
They even quote several all-important experts at prestigious universities who concur that the madness needs to end.
That's right.
After years of insisting that anyone can change their gender at will simply by wishing it, they've given up.
The sanity has prevailed.
Not since NBC News aired Katie Couric's colonoscopy live on air has the network produced content so unexpected and jarring.
Yet, it is a very welcome departure from the norm.
I mean, this article is welcome, not the colonoscopy, just to be clear.
But, as you may have guessed by now, NBC News published this in-depth analysis without realizing what they were doing.
Self-awareness, as ever, is in short supply in the mainstream media, but there's no denying that's what they did.
They obliterated, point by point, any logical argument in favor of transgenderism.
How did they do it?
Well, the piece in question is on NBC News' website right now.
You can go check it out.
It's headlined, Inside the Online World of People Who Think They Can Change Their Race.
Now, the article is apparently intended to disprove the idea that you can opt into another racial category, and along the way, accidentally, every argument from NBC News and their thought leaders ends up refuting the idea that people can change their gender, too.
The piece begins by describing a teenager who lives in Maryland and thinks that she's transforming into a Japanese woman.
She's changed her name.
She also thinks that just by wishing it, her hair is getting darker, her eyelids are getting smaller, etc.
Now, right away, the keen observer might note that it sounds exactly like the lingo that trans activists use.
According to NBC, this girl also watches videos, like the one we're going to play for you in a second, apparently to help her transition and help this proceed.
It's sort of like a mental thing.
And I'll show you a piece of this video.
Again, this is a video that helps you transition into an Asian person.
But just be forewarned that upon watching this video, it might turn you Asian.
And anyway, here it is.
Now, any sane person might look at that clip and conclude that this is all crazy and that anyone who watches that video thinking that it changes their race is delusional.
Case closed.
But on NBC News, they weren't ready to move on so quickly.
This is something of a sensitive subject for them, and for anyone on the left, because they spent the last few years telling us that anyone can change their gender at will, that your identity is entirely up to you.
It's a fluid thing that you determine for yourself.
So they understand that they have to respond to the obvious question, which is, why shouldn't we affirm the identity of this teenage trans Japanese girl?
She says she's Japanese.
She watched a few YouTube videos, maybe bought a kimono or two.
She feels more at home, more herself in her Japanese identity.
She recognizes inside herself her innate Japanese-ness.
Why isn't that good enough?
Who are we to deny her lived experience?
Who are we to reject her truth?
Well, here's the crux of NBC News' argument, quote, "Experts agree race is not genetic,
but they contend that even though race is a cultural construct, it is impossible to
change your race because of the systemic inequalities inherent to being born into a certain race."
Now, think about what they wrote for more than two seconds, and the logic falls apart.
In fact, it doesn't really take two seconds even for it to fall apart.
They're saying that you can't change your race because there are systemic inequalities inherent to being born into certain races.
But, wait a minute, aren't these the same experts who tell us that women live under the thumb of the patriarchy?
That they can't even earn an honest living because of how sexist our society is?
That if you go and you get a job as a woman, you automatically make, you know, 77 cents on the dollar or whatever the made-up figure is now?
So that sounds a lot like systemic inequality, if it was true, which it isn't.
And yet they have no problem with men deciding to identify as women, despite all the systemic inequality women have allegedly endured.
Why is that?
Well, the NBC piece doesn't say, doesn't really linger on that point, which is strange because they've had a lot of time to prepare for this question.
Remember when they destroyed Rachel Dolezal a few years ago?
She claimed to be black and she drove them absolutely crazy because they had no way of refuting what she was saying.
So let's just, just to remind ourselves, here's Matt Lauer and his attempt a few years ago to take down Rachel Dolezal.
Let me just ask you the question in simple terms again because you've sent mixed signals over the years.
Are you an African American woman?
I identify as black.
You identify as black.
Let me put a picture up of you in your early 20s though.
And when you see this picture, is this an African American woman?
Or is that a Caucasian woman?
That's not in my early 20s, but... That's a little younger, I guess.
Yeah, I think I was 16 in that picture.
Is she a Caucasian woman or an African American woman?
I would say that visibly she would be identified as white by people who see her.
But at the time, were you identifying yourself as African American?
In that picture, during that time, no.
Your parents were asked this question this week and they didn't have any trouble answering it.
Here's what they said.
She's clearly our birth daughter and we're clearly Caucasian.
That's just a fact.
Your father went on to say she's a very talented woman doing work she believes in.
Why can't she do that as a Caucasian woman, which is what she is?
Now you notice, and that's very traumatizing to go back and watch that again, because Matt Lauer uses all of these transphobic arguments to disprove Rachel Dolezal's claim that she's black.
First he confronts her with a photo of her in her teenage years.
He suggests that because she was white then, she can't possibly be black now.
Then Matt Lauer calls in Dolezal's parents, who deny her lived experience as a black woman, and were meant to take that as proof that Dolezal is lying.
So why exactly aren't we allowed to refute transgenderism on the same basis?
Why exactly can't we show photos of William Thomas?
It goes by Leo Thomas now.
Before he started pretending to be a female swimmer.
That's proof that he's really a man.
Why aren't we supposed to call the parents of trans activists and ask them what gender their kid really is?
Now at the time, Matt Lauer and NBC News didn't resolve that question, but now NBC is intent on addressing it.
Because there are a lot more Rachel Dolezals coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden.
I wonder why that is.
That's a big problem for the trans movement.
They desperately don't want you to apply the incoherent logic of transgenderism in order to justify transracialism.
It's clear why that is, and in a moment we'll get to that, but for now, let's focus on NBC's argument, such as it is.
NBC News called in a series of experts for this article, and fortunately for NBC, every single one of them managed to undercut the trans argument even further, accidentally.
They quoted a trans activist named Teek Milan, for example, who objects to transracialism on the grounds that people with fetishes are into it.
Can you imagine?
Quote, It's not just putting on the hair and the makeup and talking and walking in a kind of way.
That is fetishizing, and it's objectifying, and it reduces the beautiful and complicated cultures of people of color.
In other words, going full Trudeau and layering on the blackface doesn't make you black.
In fact, it fetishizes and targets black people in a way that's totally inappropriate, which seems intuitive enough.
But strangely enough, the expert did not condemn autogynophiles, who dress up as women for the sole purpose of arousal and of debasing women, which they get a sexual thrill out of.
So you can't fetishize another race, but you can fetishize women, if you're a man, by dressing up as one.
Why is that?
Now, NBC News was, again, silent on that point.
But let's pause for a second.
You might be wondering whether this article was a kind of cry for help from deep within the bowels of NBC News.
And honestly, it might be.
The author of the piece is a college student at the University of Pennsylvania who's currently interning at the network.
This intern is majoring in philosophy.
So why would NBC News assign a college kid to write their big takedown of transracialism?
Who knows?
Maybe they got played.
I don't know.
Either way, it's certainly entertaining.
So let's keep on reading the article, because the more you read, the better it gets.
At one point, the piece tries to rebut the idea of transracialism and transgenderism, the idea that they're comparable, and they quote that same activist, Teek Milan, with this line.
Which may be the single dumbest statement ever uttered by a trans activist, as mighty a hurdle as that is to get over.
But here's the line, quote, "Race historically emerged as a social construct to establish a
racial hierarchy with the right white race at the top, whereas variances in gender identity
have existed for thousands of years." Now, it's hard to know where to begin.
The first line is simply false.
For one, the concept of race did not begin with colonialism.
It began in antiquity.
The Roman poet Virgil called his people the Togad race, for example.
And many cultures, like in Asia, established racial hierarchies that had nothing to do with whites one way or another.
Other cultures created racial hierarchies that put the white race at the bottom.
In fact, they're calling for a white genocide in South Africa right now.
In case you missed it, here's footage of a leading political figure in the country, right now, chanting, kill the white farmer, as a massive crowd cheers him on.
Watch.
Kill the poor!
The farmer!
Kill the poor!
All I ask, should to kill Hamas, kill the poor, the farmer, kill the poor, the farmer,
brrrr paaah.
Pah!
Brrrr-pah!
There's a lot of people in that stadium, all very excited about killing white farmers.
Now, that doesn't seem like a racial hierarchy with the white race at the top.
So, we're left with the trans activist claim that variances in gender identity, the ones that we're seeing today, have been around for thousands of years.
Because, yeah, we all know that there were a bunch of pansexual, aromantic non-binaries walking around in the 1600s.
It's just that nobody ever mentioned them.
We have to believe that they existed on faith, I suppose.
It takes faith, because in fact, as it turns out, there is no recorded history anywhere in the world, in any culture, of people believing that men could actually be women, or that women could actually be men.
This concept did not exist anywhere in the world until it was invented by gender ideologues in the 20th century.
So, everything you heard from that expert, quote-unquote, was completely false, but even putting all the factual issues to the side.
What that expert said doesn't begin to explain why people can't change their race.
This is how wrong these people are all the time.
You know, they're so wrong that even if their initial arguments are correct, Their conclusions would still be wrong.
So they build their arguments on these false premises, but even if you agree with the premise, even if you ignore the fact that the premise is completely false, it still doesn't lead to the conclusion that they want it to lead to.
So if you assume it's true that gender identity has been around for longer than racial distinctions, there's still no answer to this basic question, why can't we change our race?
Do we have to wait a thousand years or so and then we can do it?
Besides, if race is a new concept, then doesn't that make it even more fluid and negotiable?
Doesn't that make it even more valid to reject the social construct of race entirely?
Who knows?
The NBC piece just moves on.
They flail a little bit and then they cite Jamie Cohen, a random Queens College professor, for some support on this.
He says, people can't change their race because, and I'm quoting, it's just belief.
It doesn't ever really work because it's not doing anything.
But they've convinced themselves that it works because there's other people who have convinced themselves as well.
Oh, so like a social contagion sounds like that's what you're talking about.
By the way, Jamie Cohen, like the author of this piece, is not a scientist.
He's a culture and media studies professor.
On his website, he says that he specializes in memes and also something called advertising inequalities and social media.
Now, that's not to say that he can't comment on this topic, obviously, but it's notable that the very same people who yell things like, you can't comment on transgenderism, you're not a member of the American Medical Association, those same people are now quoting meme professors to explain away transracialism.
It's worth pausing to note something that's curiously absent from this NBC bombshell, and that's the word sex.
Nowhere in this five-page article does the word sex come up.
They talk about gender and social constructs throughout the piece, but never sex.
Why is that?
Well, here's one possibility.
Maybe it's because they know that sex has a clear biological component.
Sex is biological.
And at a biological level, there's an objective genetic explanation for why some people are men and some people are women.
And these genetic differences between men and women, first of all, exist no matter what you call them or what you label them.
They just are.
They're physical realities.
And they're far more substantial than any conceivable genetic differences between racial categories.
Men have a completely different set of chromosomes than women do.
That affects the entire body and how it functions.
What that means is that transracialism, while completely crazy, is a lot less crazy than transgenderism.
The transracial Japanese girl has a much more valid claim to her Japanese identity than any man has to a female identity, or vice versa.
Race actually is fluid, after all.
Everyone is a mix of races and ethnicities.
So, why do they want to avoid talking about genetics and objective reality?
Why can't they just come out and admit that, yeah, if you support transgenderism, then you should also support transracialism?
I mean, why not just let people be whoever they want to be?
Whatever it is.
Your identity is completely fluid.
Be what you want.
Well, the truth is, they embrace transgenderism while rejecting transracialism for a simple reason.
One that has nothing to do with logic or science or anything else.
The left has constructed a race-based spoil system that punishes their political opponents and elevates loyal members of their party.
They don't want that system to come crashing down on them.
Now, self-identified transgender people are the left's dependable political allies.
Like, they can assume.
They own the entire LGBT alphabet.
And so they can just assume that any man who identifies as a woman is almost certainly going to vote Democrat and be a leftist, with only very rare exceptions.
But the people who could take advantage of a transracial system Would not be so dependable.
If Asians and white people could instantly claim to be oppressed black men, then all of their cynical racial politics would collapse overnight on the left.
And they can't have that.
It's that simple.
The pseudoscience is a cover and not a particularly effective one.
Now, a lot of people have tried to make that case over the years, especially since the Rachel Dolezal episode, but few of them have done it better than NBC News and their intrepid philosophy intern.
In their attempts to shut down transracialism, they have exposed transgenderism.
Now, to be sure, like a confused teenager in Maryland who thinks she's Japanese, NBC has no idea what it's doing.
But in this case, they accidentally did some journalism, one way or another.
And for that, we should all be grateful.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
If you love venturing into the great outdoors, you know that staying connected
is essential for safety and peace of mind.
That's where Satellite Phone Store comes into play.
Their devices help you stay in touch with friends, family, and emergency services, even when you're far from cellular coverage.
Satellite Phone Store is a bivy stick and satellite communicator.
Use satellite networks for phone calls, text messages, GPS navigation, and an SOS feature for emergency situations as well.
If you're not sure which device is right for you, think about where you'll be using the device and what features are most important to you.
If you need a lightweight, Compact option for backpacking, a bivy stick might be the better choice.
However, if you want a more robust device with additional features like weather forecast, two-way messaging, if you're going out camping or something like that, a satellite communicator could be the better option.
Something that brings me peace of mind is knowing that even in a global disaster, satellite phones will keep me and my loved ones always connected.
For a limited time, Satellite Phone Store has a special promotional offer.
When you go to sat123.com slash walsh, you get a free bivy stick or free The Daily Wire reports Hunter Biden's former business partner reportedly confirmed to the House Oversight Committee that President Joe Biden was on more than 20 calls with his son during a closed-door meeting on Monday.
Republican members pressed for details about alleged foreign business dealings involving the president during his time in the Obama administration.
Devin Archer, who served as the director of Ukrainian energy company Burisma alongside Hunter Biden, reportedly ignored questions from the press as he walked into the O'Neill House building.
Yesterday, the committee was expected to interview Archer for approximately five hours, where Republican and Democrat members rotated between hour blocks to investigate the key witness, who, as alleged, Hunter put then-Vice President Joe Biden on speakerphone roughly two dozen times as Hunter spoke to his foreign business partners or investors beginning in 2014.
Representative Dan Goldman, who was reportedly the only left-wing politician present in the room during Archer's testimony, said that Archer, quote, indicated that Hunter spoke to his father every day and approximately 20 times over the course of a 10-year relationship, the Daily Mail reported.
Now, so he's reporting over 20 occasions where Joe Biden, again, this is Joe Biden while he is vice president, while he's in the White House, on the phone with Hunter Biden's foreign business partners and investors.
But what were they talking about, is the question.
And Dan Goldman has an answer for that.
And, you know, it's interesting to hear what he says, and also just how he looks, everything.
You can tell that he's panicked.
He's very flustered.
He doesn't know what to say.
Because he's just come out of this five-hour investigation, interrogation.
He's heard all of this.
And he knows that it's bad.
But he's trying to find some kind of way to let Biden off the hook.
And this is what he comes up with.
So to confirm, you're saying that the speakerphone conversations, they don't seem concerning to you because there is no specifics about business.
And it just seemed like it was clear that it was clear that it was part of the daily conversations that Hunter Biden had with his father.
And it was and and sounds like most of the time.
Now President Biden didn't even know who the people he was at dinner.
He was just asked to say hello.
And he would, you know, talk about the way he described it several times.
They asked over and over and over.
He described what the weather was, how, what's going on on your end.
The witness was very Very consistent that none of those conversations ever had to do with any business dealings or transactions.
They were purely what he called casual conversation.
Oh, they were just talking about the weather.
That's all they were talking about.
Which, first of all, like Joe Biden would even know the weather.
Like, that's a conversation you could even have, as if he's aware enough.
Now, this was back in 2014, 15.
Slightly less senile back then.
But, you know, they're just talking about the weather, that's all.
Nothing to worry about.
The fact that his dad happens to be vice president, total, you know, this has got nothing to do with it.
Hey, business partner, let me put you on the phone with my dad, who happens to be vice president, just so he can say hi to you.
So we are supposed to believe that Joe Biden at this point was operating in his capacity simply as a proud father of his crackhead son, and that the fact that he was vice president had nothing to do with the conversation.
Well, if that's the case, why?
Why would you put, like if your dad is not the vice president, why would you put him on the phone randomly with your, with business partners or investors who you claim he doesn't even know?
Let me call my daddy up so you can talk to him.
What, when would that ever happen?
Why would you ever do that?
Well, you would do it if your dad's the vice president and you're trying to use his influence in your corrupt business dealings.
That's the only reason you would do that, right?
Okay, if Hunter Biden's dad, if Joe Biden was a plumber, well, the world would be a much better place right now if Joe Biden was a plumber.
Now, maybe the houses that he worked on as a plumber would not be in such great shape, but certainly the world would.
But if his dad's a plumber or something, or works at, you know, the deli down the street, If he's the manager of the local Walmart, is Hunter Biden going to put his dad on the phone with his business partners?
That's what we're supposed to believe.
Now, of course, the idea that they didn't talk about business at all and they only talked about the weather is absurd.
But even if it's true, which it isn't, It still wouldn't exonerate Joe Biden.
Because, after all, this is how influence peddling works.
It's all about making the connection.
So, in some ways, it doesn't really matter what Joe said on those calls.
The fact that he got on the calls in the first place, as vice president, inserting himself into these business dealings with his son overseas, that's all that matters.
There's the corruption.
It doesn't actually matter what was said.
Because the only reason, again, to get on the calls is to establish the connection, to use his influence to help his son in his corrupt business dealings.
That's the whole point.
So it might be true that in some of these conversations, the weather, they pretended to make small talk and the weather came up.
So what?
You don't need to get on the phone.
Joe doesn't need to get on the phone and say, uh, listen, I'm going to use my political position of Vice President of the United States and my position of power to help you with this thing.
And in exchange, you'll do this.
And like, that's not generally how it works.
But, um, that's if you buy the whole, they talked about the weather bit, which obviously I don't and you shouldn't.
So yes, Biden is corrupt.
The whole family's corrupt.
His son's a crackhead and corrupt.
And all of that is true.
Absolutely.
Okay.
And maybe you get tired of hearing me go on about this, but for me, it all comes back to, once we've established that, and I think we have established that for any reasonable person, it all comes back to Republicans.
And the same question I'm always asking, which is, what are you going to do about it?
That's the only conversation I'm interested in having at this point.
Now, some people get upset at me because I don't spend more time talking about Biden on this show and his corruption and all that.
There aren't very many shows of mine that the lead topic is, here's the latest with Joe Biden, here's all the terrible things Joe Biden's doing.
And the reason I don't do that is, well, for one thing, I don't focus as much on politics, I focus on culture.
But also, we all get it, right?
Like, the whole audience gets it.
I'm not interested in continually repeating the mantra about how Biden is a criminal if Republicans aren't going to do anything about it.
And they can't really right now, except all they can do right now is basically symbolic.
There's some value in symbolic gestures.
But will they do something if they have the power to do so?
So I go, I think back to 2015, 2016.
And like anyone else in right-wing media at the time, I didn't have a podcast back then, but I was writing a lot and I was hammering on the point that Hillary is a criminal and a crook and the emails and all that, okay?
Like anybody else in conservative media, a lot of ink was spilled from me on that subject.
Lock her up, I was chanting that too.
And then Republicans take the White House and the Senate and the House and they do nothing.
They just do nothing.
They do absolutely nothing.
Going into office, lock her up, lock her up, and then they're in office, nothing, no attempt even to lock her up.
There's no discussion.
And I think most of the people that were chanting it didn't believe it would even happen, didn't care if it did.
If you'd asked most of them, they'd say, well, we're not really going to put Hillary Clinton in prison.
You think we're actually going to do that?
Of course not.
Well, for some of us, no.
We actually wanted you to do it.
It was not just... We're not here talking about how corrupt Hillary Clinton is for our own health.
We're not saying it because we enjoy talking about it.
We want you to do something.
Look at the Democrats.
They are actually trying to throw Trump in prison.
That is, they are really trying to do it.
I don't like it.
I don't approve.
I think it's an outrage.
I think it's an actual attack on our democratic system and all the norms they pretend to care so much about.
But they're following through.
They yelled, lock him up.
And while he was in office, people on the left were saying, when he gets out of office, we're going to go after this guy.
We're going to take him down.
He's going to pay for this.
They kept saying that.
And now they're trying to do it.
So they yell, lock them up, and then they actually try to arrest—actually, no, don't try.
They yell, lock them up, and then they actually proceed to arrest their political enemies and try to throw them in prison.
Whereas we yell, lock them up, and then do nothing.
It's all talk.
All sloganeering.
So I want to see Republicans do something.
We don't need to repeat over and over again what we all know to be true.
Go do something.
The fact is that You know, Republicans aren't throwing corrupt Democrats in jail anywhere, even right now, where they might have the power to do so.
That should have been the first response to what they're doing to Trump.
Like, there are Republican DAs out there.
There are areas of the country that are controlled by Republicans.
Why aren't they frog-marching some corrupt Democrats into prison to make an example out of them?
Why isn't that happening?
It's not happening anywhere.
In fact, it's the opposite.
Corrupt Democrats get pardons.
Okay, the last time Republicans were in charge, corrupt Democrats got pardons.
Kwame Kilpatrick, the absurdly corrupt Democrat former mayor of Detroit, okay?
The guy had been convicted of perjury, mail fraud, wire fraud, racketeering.
It's like cartoonishly corrupt and a Democrat.
Trump commuted his sentence.
So, that's what we do with corrupt Democrats.
We give them a helping hand.
So it doesn't excite me as much as it does maybe some people.
We say, oh, we got him dead to rights this time.
Biden, look, this proves it.
Yeah, I mean, it does.
Absolutely.
Doesn't excite me, though, because I have no faith at all that Republicans will do a damn thing about it if they ever have the power to.
Hope I'm wrong.
But action is what I'm interested in.
It's not like I'm only applying that to this topic.
This is my approach to anything.
I care about action.
That's why I spent the last two years of my life pushing for laws and legislation against child mutilation.
I'm not interested in just talking about it.
I want to see action.
I want to see things done.
That's what I care about.
This is not just a topic for conversation.
I'm afraid for a lot of people on the right, especially a lot of people in the right-wing media, that's all it really is.
It's just stuff to talk about.
I don't really care about it.
And you'll know who those people are.
Because if Republicans manage to take the White House in 2024 and then are in a position to actually hold Biden accountable, how many of the right-wing commentators and pundits right now who are going on about Biden's corruption, how many of them are going to push that Republican president, whoever it may be, how many are going to push him and say, okay, follow through now, do it.
We're not going to take any, no excuses.
How many of them are going to say that?
How many of them followed up once Trump took office in 2016 and said, what about all the lock her up stuff?
What happened with that?
Lock her up is a mantra.
It's a slogan precisely in the moments when Republicans don't have the power to do it.
That has been the theme with Republicans forever.
They're very excited about doing things when they don't have the power to do it.
And then when they have the power to do it, it's like it never happened.
We forget about it.
All right, this is from the Daily Wire.
Self-described transsexual male who had surgery in 2009 to invert his penis into an imitation vagina has experienced such constant pain that he asked Canada's MADE, which is the medical assistance in dying program, for permission to be euthanized and was rejected.
Lewis Cardinal, 35, who describes himself as a sterilized First Nations post-op transsexual, Petition the MAID program with his doctor writing this problem was pain and anxiety related to neovagina for gender affirmation.
The doctor then referred Cardinal to another doctor who wrote, quote, based on current clinical information and consultation, the patient does not meet current MAID criteria, adding that the patient could be reassessed in the future of change in clinical status.
Wesley J. Smith of the National Review noted, Canadian law does not require those who want to be killed to access such care.
To the contrary, irremediable suffering is based on the patient's perspective, not the unavailability of treatment or interventions.
Cardinal informed the Daily Mail, quote, I'm in constant discomfort and pain.
It's taking this psychological burden on me.
If I'm not able to access proper medical care, I don't want to continue to do this.
And do this meaning live.
I'm not getting any better and nor am I experiencing better medical care or any medical care.
It's so captured by gender ideologies that they care more about my pronouns.
Cardinal tweeted, I call on all levels of governments and offices to reconsider their stance on gender affirming care.
Okay, so, first of all, Should go without saying that I absolutely reject the idea of medical assistance in dying and euthanasia, so I don't think that anybody should be euthanized.
And I don't think that this guy should be euthanized either.
But the fact that they won't approve it shows a glaring inconsistency in Canada when it comes to how they approach euthanasia.
Medical assistance in dying, quote-unquote, as they euphemistically call it.
Because as the National Review correctly noted, they don't have any, you know, there are no, There are no policies, there are no requirements right now in place that should by all rights prevent this individual from accessing this quote-unquote care.
Big quotes around that.
There's nothing.
All that is required now to be euthanized, to be put down like a dog, is that if you have Suffering, that is not going away.
If you are suffering in a way and it's not going away and you don't see any end to the suffering in sight, it does not need to be a terminal illness that long since passed.
That's long in the past now in Canada.
You only need to have a terminal illness.
Now, if you're suffering and it cannot be remediated, it cannot be helped, and who determines that?
Well, again, the policies were made in Canada stipulate that that's up to the patient to Which means that's basically open to anybody.
And certainly in this person's case, it is actually true that there is immense suffering he's experiencing right now that really can't be remediated and will be permanent.
Which isn't to say that, again, it's not to say that he should be euthanized, that he should commit suicide, certainly not.
But that is the reality.
This is intense, very real suffering he's experiencing, and there is no real solution for it.
There's always hope in life, and there's ways that you can find happiness and joy in life no matter what you're going through, but there's no solution for what he's suffering from.
What the doctors did to him is permanent.
It cannot be undone.
And the mental and physical anguish, therefore, is also At some level, permanent.
Like, I don't think you'll ever get to the point where you're just okay with the fact that this was done to you.
That's not ever going to happen.
So now, you know, and this is the case, there are other people in other categories who are dealing with immense suffering that is not going to go away, but you find ways to live with it.
And that should be the message to him.
But that is not Canada's message to most people who are suffering in a way that cannot be cured completely.
So why are they turning him down?
Well, the real reason, of course, is that this man's case is politically inconvenient.
It is detrimental.
There's nothing to be gained politically by admitting trans-identified people with regrets into the program.
It starts a whole conversation that they don't want to have.
His whole case, his existence, is an inconvenience to them.
They would rather he not exist.
Only they don't want to help him not exist anymore because that calls attention to it.
That's the reality.
Because euthanasia, one of the many, many great problems with euthanasia, that everyone should understand, It doesn't matter what your euthanasia policy is.
It doesn't matter if you are only, quote unquote, only allowing euthanasia for the terminally ill.
No matter what, it is going to be politicized.
The moment the government gets involved in suicide, by coming up with laws and policies and regulations for it, it becomes politicized automatically.
Anything the government is involved in is politicized inherently.
The government is a political entity.
So if they're coming up with regulations for anything, there's going to be a political element to it.
Always.
So you have to ask yourself, do you want any kind of politicization of suicide?
Which is why, one of the many reasons again, why euthanasia should, there should be no legal euthanasia at all.
Because that means the government's getting involved.
You have the government involved in regulating suicide and deciding who is eligible for suicide and who isn't, which is just, like, grotesque, the whole thing.
And also, the medical industry is involved.
Essentially, it's like the two last institutions you would ever want to be involved in suicide, government and medicine, now are.
But really, you don't want anything or anyone involved in suicide, because anytime somebody is suicidal, our message should be a message of hope to them, and we should be finding ways to help them live with whatever they're going through, not give up and die.
That should always be our message.
Here's an interesting article from CNN.
CNN says Christian leadership in the US has typically been seen as a male occupation.
The right for women to be ordained and serve as faith leaders has been hard won over decades
and in several major factions like the Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist churches, women
are barred from the highest levels of leadership.
However, among mainstream denominations that do ordain women, a sea change is occurring.
More women are entering seminary and other theological programs with the intent of becoming
As it follows, more women are also occupying these roles after being ordained.
Experts say one of the main reasons for the increase is that women of faith are looking at their religious traditions and sensing a need for change.
Alexis Abernethy, the Chief Academic Officer at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California says women and men in the church have seen abuse and suffering.
They've seen the role of the patriarchy in the church.
They want to address constructively some of these challenges that have been facing both the church and our society.
They're saying enough of this.
We need to be different.
So I think a lot of these women are marshalling energy in that direction.
And so it's an article all about this alleged change that's happening where women are finally assuming leadership positions in the church, in churches all across America.
Two quick points about that.
First, it's a myth that churches in America have been run by men up to this point.
So if more women are getting involved in churches, that's not a sea change at all.
It's not any kind of change.
That's just more of the same.
Most churches have been run by women for the past several decades.
Okay, maybe not in an official capacity, or as pastors or priests in all these cases, but women have been running the show in most churches for a long time.
Anyone who's been going to church for any period of time knows that.
I mean, even in the Catholic Church, where women cannot become priests, still your average Catholic parish is not going to have a female priest.
But there will be, in almost every case, a gaggle of women who basically run things.
There might be a liberal nun in there, you know, one of those nuns that wears regular clothes, doesn't wear the habit.
Maybe there's like a female music director or something, other positions as well.
But whatever the position the women have in the church, or maybe they have none at all, There are also going to be a lot of women who don't have an official position, you know, they are just part of the congregation, and yet they have inserted themselves into all these different aspects of what goes on in the church, and they're very vocal, and they're very, you know, if there's anything that happens that upsets them, it's whoever actually is supposed to be running the church, the pastor, the priest knows, it's like, okay, I want to hear from them about this, and they effectively run the church.
So, and that is why, you know, for years now, Most churches have catered to women because they've effectively been run by women.
Churches in America are already female-led, okay, much to their detriment.
That's because the last thing that we need here is more women in church leadership positions.
That's the last thing we need.
The church is already too feminized, too soft, too focused on feelings and emotions and being welcoming and inclusive.
All of that is coming from liberal women in these churches, or most of it anyway.
They're the ones driving this.
The church, Christendom in America is what I, you know, I'm talking about all of Christianity basically, with rare exception, is far too soft and feminine.
And again, it's been that way for years.
So, adding more women into leadership, it's just going to drive that problem even more, which of course is what CNN wants.
So they realize that.
And it's a self-perpetuating problem.
The more feminine the church is, the less men want to go, and the less that men want to go, the more women are in charge, because there's no one else there, and the more they're in charge, the more feminine it gets, and the less men want to go, so the more women are in charge, the more feminine it gets, the less men want to go, and it's just on and on and on.
A self-perpetuating cycle.
And it's really more of a death spiral, self-perpetuating death spiral for the church.
You know, C.S.
Lewis, and I'm going to butcher the quote, I don't remember the exact quote, but he talks about how going to church, it should have the feeling of, you know, of getting battle plans, of like, you're in the middle of a war and you're meeting And you're going over your battle plans for the battle ahead.
And you should have very much that feeling of spiritual warfare.
And you're all soldiers and you're meeting together and you're discussing what your battle strategy is going to be.
That's the feeling that church should have.
He put it much more eloquently than that.
But that's right.
That's what church should feel like.
Because that's what it is.
We're in the middle of a spiritual warfare, and church is supposed to equip us for that spiritual warfare.
And one of the advantages that we're supposed to have from going to church every week is that it equips us for the battle ahead for the next week.
Like, we're coming off of the battlefield.
And battered and bruised from the past week of fighting it.
And now we're collecting ourselves and we're getting ready to go back out into that battlefield again.
But that's how it should feel.
And if churches have that feeling, then you're going to have a lot more men showing up.
Because that's what men want.
But that's not what churches feel like.
That's not the, to use the, as the kids would say, that's not the vibe, okay?
That's not the vibe you get from most churches.
Rare exception, again, and I'm always going to hear from people who say, well, my church is not like that.
Well, then God bless you and your church.
But most churches, it is.
It does not have the feeling of like spiritual warfare, battle plans, you're going to war, you're fighting, you're fighting the forces of evil.
That is not the feeling.
And every, it's all set up to not feel that way.
Everything from the way that the churches are built now, you know, they're built to look like either they look like kind of these nondescript office building types, very sterile environments, or they look, you know, if it's a mega church, they look like just a concert venue and, you know, an auditorium of some kind.
But that's how they look.
And then you go in and the music is very feminine music and everything about the message from the pastor, a very feminine message, always about welcoming and being nice and being friends.
And men sit in there and they are bored to death by it.
They are just bored to tears and feeling like they get nothing out of it.
And they leave in droves, the women take over more, and again, it continues and continues.
So, this CNN is not reporting on a new development in churches, but rather just more of the same, unfortunately.
Let's get to the comment section.
Do you know that name?
They're the sweet baby gang Most people only think about poor air quality when we have
fires like the ones that just happened in Canada causing New York to be
a strange orange color that made the air quality absolutely terrible
But have you stopped to think about the polluted air in your day-to-day life?
You and your family's health may be affected by the air quality in your home.
Allergens and germs floating in the air you breathe can make you sick, but the good news is There's technology out there that helps you purify your living space easily and affordably.
With EnviroCleanse, you'll never have to worry again.
EnviroCleanse is an in-home air purifying unit designed to destroy cold and flu viruses, allergy-inflamming toxins, mold, and even more.
EnviroCleanse promises far fewer colds, allergies, and better sleep as well.
Their air purifiers come in all sizes, colors, and prices to fit every budget, and they offer additional products like surface cleaner and laundry detergent.
EnviroCleanse is the air purifier we use in our home, We've got several kids that have allergies, so we use EnviroCleanse for that.
It's made it a lot better.
I love it.
It gives me the peace of mind that I'm breathing in healthy air.
The last thing I need with how often I'm traveling is to get sick.
The last thing anyone in my family needs is to get sick.
So EnviroCleanse offers a simple solution for keeping me healthy and in tip-top shape.
Breathe in pure air and live a healthier life.
Visit ekpure.com and use code WALSH.
I don't think we will ever fully know if Matt is an alien believer or if this is all just a masterfully comedic performance.
Right now you get their free air quality monitor plus fast free shipping.
That's a $150 savings.
EKpure.com.
That's EKpure.com, promo code Walsh.
Crispy Honey Bun says, "I don't think we will ever fully know if Matt is an alien believer
or if this is all just a masterfully comedic performance."
These comments every single time I talk about this issue.
How marginalized do you think this makes me?
How alone in the world, we may not be alone in the universe, but how alone does it make me feel that even when I try to express myself, speaking from the greatest depths of my heart as a member of the ABC, Alien Believing Community, that when I do that, all I get is laughter from people saying, oh, what a great joke, man.
I'm not joking about this.
I don't joke in general.
I don't believe in it.
And I certainly would not joke about this.
Strago says, I love how Matt develops the theme and you never know if he's making joke or being serious.
Everything seems like a joke and serious at the same time.
Very funny.
Well, again, I don't know what part of our discussion yesterday, or of me destroying Ben Shapiro with facts and logic on the alien debate, I don't know what part of that seemed like a joke to you, but this is all deadly serious.
Another comment says, it's great that Matt can attack his boss like this and nothing happens.
Most people would love to work at a place where you can say anything.
Well, he's not my boss anymore, though, because I owned him.
Legally, he is now my employee.
This is written into law.
A lot of people don't know this, but it's an actual thing.
If you own your boss with a YouTube video, Then after that, he actually becomes your subordinate.
So it's a little-known loophole in our labor laws, but that's the situation.
That's what Ben's dealing with now.
Kay Stan says, I have to admit that when Matt started talking about aliens, I thought it was nonsense, but now he's actually winning me over with his arguments.
Okay, good.
So there's at least one person taking me seriously.
Thank God.
Here's a comment not related to aliens.
I don't know why I'm reading in that case.
David says, I like what you say about learning about the whole story of slavery rather than just the one piece of it.
It won't make slavery seem justified, but it does make you pause before singling out white people as the main villains in the slavery story.
Same thing for Western expansion to the Americas.
Easy to condemn now, but all civilizations through history have expanded through violence.
Yeah, I mean, your point is basically correct.
To say that white people aren't the main villains in the slavery story is a vast understatement.
Slavery was a global institution for millennia, so no race or ethnicity or culture is the main villain of it, and no race, ethnicity, or culture is innocent in this crime.
In fact, you know, arguably white people aren't even the main villains, or certainly not the only villains, of slavery in the West.
If we were to just narrow it down to that, Because those slaves were sold into slavery by Africans.
What you say about Western expansion is also true, but I wouldn't talk about Western expansion like it's some evil that needs to be excused.
The drive to come across the ocean and expand into this untamed, unknown part of the globe, you know, that was, it was good.
It's like, it's not a thing that we need to rationalize or excuse.
It was a good thing.
It was noble and courageous.
And I'm certainly glad that it happened.
I'm glad that this part of the world was conquered.
And everyone who lives here is glad that it happened also, whether they admit it or not.
Like, if they could rewind the clock and have none of that ever happen, they wouldn't do it.
For one thing, it means that they would cease to exist, they would be unwriting their own existence, so that's probably one reason why they wouldn't do it.
But, if this part of the world had remained, you know, it was about 3,000 years in the past.
This part of the world was, it's pretty fascinating.
Like, it's a fascinating moment in history.
It's why I love reading about it and studying it.
The moment when Europeans came into the New World, because they were basically going backwards in time about 3,000 years.
The Indian civilizations were about 3,000 years in the past, if not farther than that.
Now, were atrocities committed by Europeans and later Americans against the Indians?
Yes, atrocities.
Plenty of them were committed the other way, too.
You know, there were atrocities.
Anytime you have a story of conquest, there's always going to be violence on both sides.
But whites were responsible for their share of it.
As you say, conquest has always involved violence, and conquest has been practiced by civilizations across the world.
But there's another point, too, which is that Again, we're judging these events from a modern lens.
Part of that bias is that, you know, the modern Western world believes in human equality, believes in the idea that all people are equal in worth and value.
But the thing is that that idea didn't really exist anywhere 500 years ago, when Europeans first made it into this hemisphere.
It was not a concept that had really been developed yet.
So when they came here, they didn't view the Indian tribes as equal to them any more than the Indians viewed their enemy tribes as equal to them.
That didn't exist.
You think the Indian tribes were talking about equality and the tribes they were warring against were equal to them?
No, absolutely not.
They didn't believe that.
Again, this idea was basically non-existent.
Not just among white cultures, but among all cultures.
So they came here, they found this wilderness.
They found these people that were living 3,000 years in the past in loincloths, running around naked in some cases, having not invented the wheel or any form of written language.
They saw things like, in some cases, ritual cannibalism.
And yeah, there were many Europeans who came to the conclusion that these tribal people were not exactly equal to them.
Now we can judge that now, we can condemn it, but it's just silly.
It just is.
Like, take away your modern lens, Okay, everything that you were born with, all of these assumptions and beliefs and the doctrine of human equality, it's impossible to really take that away from yourself and try to see the world without it.
But that is something that you were born into.
You didn't come up with that idea, you didn't earn it, you don't get credit for it.
You were just born and you were taught about this, that all people are equal.
Well, take that away, put yourself in the shoes of someone 500 years ago, entering into a wilderness, And coming across a group of people who are living thousands of years in the past and don't even have written language, and yes, where ritual cannibalism exists, and you just encounter this for the first time, and you don't have all this philosophical framework in place already that insists that everyone is equal in some way, even if they don't appear to be.
You don't have any of that, and you're just seeing this.
What conclusions are you going to draw?
You probably aren't going to draw the conclusion they're exactly equal to you in every way.
You probably won't think that.
And I know this is a point we're not supposed to ever bring up or admit or talk about, but who cares?
We all know.
Come on.
So you go back and you could read some of the things that the early, the Spanish and the conquistadors wrote about these Indian tribes and they called them savages.
How could they think that?
How could they say that?
That's so bigoted!
I don't know.
Maybe they saw them ripping out the hearts of someone and eating their limbs and they This is what they thought?
They thought, well these are, this is like savage animalistic behavior.
Is that an unreasonable thing to think?
From their perspective?
When Dr. Jordan P. Peterson made the decision to join DailyWirePlus, it was a major win for those who championed free speech and intellectual debate.
With one year of unparalleled output, his contributions have set new standards and remain unmatched by any other platform.
DailyWirePlus now has a vast array of exclusive Jordan Peterson content, offering hundreds of hours of captivating content you're not going to find anywhere else.
Jordan has created thought-provoking works that reshape your perspective on life, which include Vision and Destiny, Marriage, And dragons, monsters, and men.
Additionally, you can immerse yourself in discussions that nurture your spiritual side, like Logos and Literacy and Jordan's groundbreaking series on the Book of Exodus.
I haven't even mentioned his Beyond Order lecture series or his extensive archive of lectures and podcasts.
This is an absolute compendium of all things Jordan.
Plus, there's even more new exclusive content on the horizon.
This is only the beginning.
By becoming a Daily Wire Plus member, you'll embark on an unforgettable experience
that will fuel your thirst for knowledge and inspire personal growth like never before.
Go to dailywire.com/subscribe to become a member today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Considering my recent 17-minute rant against therapy, it will not surprise you to learn
that I do not share modern society's overriding concern for mental health.
Now, as I'll explain in a moment, mental health is important, arguably, if we understand the term a certain way, a way very different from how it is commonly understood.
But if we accept the popular narrative about mental health, it will lead us to all sorts of unfortunate directions.
It leads us, most unfortunately, to a country where some 65 million people are currently taking psychiatric drugs, And in a result not quite as dire, but still pretty bad, it leads us to this article from the website Essence.
Headline, "Nearly 40% of black women have quit jobs because they didn't feel emotionally safe.
New survey findings from black women focused mental health app, XHALE, found that the group
often feels unprotected and discouraged from leaning into their identity in the workplace."
Now, we don't have the time to dissect every piece of this, so phrases like
"leaning into their identity in the workplace" will just have to be left alone for now.
At first blush, it may seem totally incoherent.
I mean, how can you lean into your own identity?
Your identity is just who you are.
The rather insufferable lean-into expression normally means that you're working hard at something, that you're showing great effort and perseverance.
How can you work hard at your own identity?
And anyway, why is that the kind of work you'd be doing in the workplace?
Your employer didn't hire you to sit around and simply exist as yourself.
If your boss asks you what you did all day, it'd be a bad idea to answer, well, I existed.
You know, I did a lot of existing.
Yeah, I really leaned into my identity.
In fact, I'm going to bring my work home with me and continue existing even off the clock.
That's how committed I am, boss.
Doesn't make much sense.
Until you understand that by lean into your identity, what they really mean is do and say whatever you want all the time.
And what that really means in context and in practical terms is be a lazy, unproductive a**hole.
That's what anyone who expresses a desire to lean into their identity in the workplace, that's what they really mean 100% of the time.
I know we said we wouldn't spend a lot of time on this, but it turns out that it's a very relevant point.
very relevant to the main point, as we'll see as we continue.
Quote, "Black women are increasingly prioritizing their mental health,
but it's coming at the cost of their livelihood."
Exhale, a well-being app specifically for Black women and women of color,
recently published its "The State of Self-Care for Black Women" report and found that nearly
40 percent of Black women have left their jobs because they felt unsafe in their identity.
Quote, as black women, we're surrounded with messages telling us we're strong and resilient enough to manage stress.
But this survey proves that we are negatively impacted by a lack of necessary support, said Katara McCarty, founder of Exhale, in a news release shared with Essence.
Quote, Black women cannot fully heal without being fully seen.
We need culturally appropriate resources and tools that address the effects of racial trauma on mental, emotional, and physical health.
Now, I have no idea if the numbers here are correct.
I suspect they're not.
40% of Black women have left their jobs because they felt unsafe in their identity.
I would have thought it'd be impossible to find 40% of adults in any demographic who would even use the phrase, I feel unsafe in my identity, much less leave a job over it.
This is the kind of thing that you might expect a 19-year-old blue-haired Starbucks barista to scream as she storms out of her job because a customer misgendered her.
That's it, I'm leaving!
I feel so unsafe in my identity here!
I can imagine that.
I can't imagine 40% of adults in any group carrying on this way.
But perhaps I'm being overly optimistic.
I don't know.
Back to the article, quote, "The report analyzed responses from 1,005 Black women in the United
States and unpacks the stressors they experience every day across various touch points in their
lives, particularly in their professional lives. For example, 66% of respondents say that they
overexert themselves to excel in the workplace and to take care of personal responsibilities.
As Essence previously reported, burnout is prevalent among Black women and can often
manifest in physical ailments."
Quote, constantly striving to be the best of the best while foregoing self-care is really an epidemic among black women.
Fauntleroy told Essence in November 2022, she's a certified acupuncturist and owner of holistic wellness practice, The Spirit Seed, and regularly teaches clients the importance of physiological interconnectedness.
In layman's terms, She shows people how mental wounds adversely affect our overall physical health.
Well, they're really hitting all the liberal buzzwords, aren't they?
Unpack the stressors, lean into their identity, touch points, holistic wellness, self-care.
I would say that this sounds like it was written by AI, except that the article is not nearly authentic and human enough to have been written by AI.
Now the obvious point is that this is self-victimization on steroids.
Here we find another example of this absurd myth that black women somehow live especially stressful and difficult lives.
We're always being told about this.
How difficult it is to be a black... Can you imagine being a black woman in today's society?
How hard it must be.
Now in reality...
Black women are already members of two privileged classes right out of the gate.
And that's before they pad their stats by adding non-binary or obese or whatever else to the resume.
Now, sure, black women might have stresses in their lives.
They might feel overworked in some cases, burned out, and so on.
But so what?
Welcome to life, ladies.
Welcome to reality.
Welcome to existence as a human person in the world.
We're all stressed out and burned out and yada yada.
I have six kids to support.
I have two infants who only sleep for three hours at a time.
Okay, you want to go toe-to-toe in a stress match?
We can do that.
I know something about it.
But I don't sit around at work or anyone else trying to unpack it and analyze it and talk about it and establish physiological interconnectedness, whatever the hell that means.
I just live my life.
And I do what needs to be done.
Handle my business until I die.
That's it.
That's how life works.
Get used to it.
Move on.
There's nothing special or unique about your stresses.
I guarantee you that.
Your life is not as hard as you think it is.
And even if it is that hard, self-pity won't get you anywhere.
So stop moping and get on with it.
That brings us finally back to mental health.
The problem with the whole concept of mental health, as the phrase is commonly used and understood.
Is that when someone says that we should focus on mental health, what they usually mean is that we should focus on feeling good about ourselves and about our lives.
When a person complains about poor mental health, they simply mean most of the time that they feel bad, that they feel stressed out, that they feel irritated, sad, whatever.
The solution then is to prioritize mental health by doing what makes them feel good and happy and comfortable.
But this is all wrong.
Bad feelings, stressful feelings, feelings of burnout, feeling overloaded.
These are not mental sicknesses.
These are not symptoms of poor mental health.
These are symptoms of simply being a conscious human agent operating in the world.
These are symptoms not of having a sick mind, but simply having a mind.
So if you talk about, oh, I have stresses and I have this and I feel uncomfortable.
Good!
That means that you're conscious.
That means you're a person.
The alternative is what?
To be catatonic?
Trying to avoid uncomfortable feelings and experiences, that is not prioritizing your mental health, because uncomfortable feelings and experiences do not jeopardize your mental health.
In fact, it's the opposite.
A mentally healthy person is a person who experiences stress and experiences sadness and discomfort, and then continues on functioning as normal in spite of it.
In other words, prioritizing your mental health means going to work, and feeling stressed out, and then coming home, and going about your life without whining about it constantly.
That's what a mentally healthy person does.
The more you complain, the more you shield yourself from discomfort by quitting jobs or taking medicine or whatever else, the more mentally sick you make yourself.
Now, in truth, with all that said, this is the appropriate way of understanding mental health, but I still don't love the mental health versus mental sickness language, even in this context.
That's because health and sickness are diagnostic terms.
They are medical language.
The more that we can take medical language away from the mind, the better.
The more that we can separate these two and stop thinking of the mind as this entity that can be constantly diagnosed with various sicknesses, like the way that you can be diagnosed with diabetes or arthritis or something, the more we can do that, the better.
You know, a woman who leaves her job because she doesn't feel safe in her identity is not mentally sick, exactly.
This is a moral defect.
This is a character flaw.
She lacks fortitude.
She lacks perseverance.
She lacks maturity.
She lacks strength.
She's weak.
She's a coward.
She's selfish.
She's shallow.
She's actually just sort of a bad person.
Okay?
If you're leaving jobs because I don't feel unsafe in my identity, you're just like a bad person.
You're not a good person.
You're weak.
You're silly.
You're frivolous.
You don't have a medical problem.
You have a character problem.
This has nothing to do with mental health one way or another.
So even when we try to come to a more coherent understanding of mental health, we still find that it misses the point.
It's not a useful concept in most cases.
Because as it turns out, the best thing you can do about your mental health, whatever exactly we mean by that, is to stop thinking about it.
Stop making it the goal and focus.
The most mentally healthy people in the world are the people who've never thought for one second about their mental health or done one single thing for the sake of it.
Okay, find me a person who has never uttered the phrase, I'm prioritizing my mental health.
That person is way mentally healthier than anyone who has done the opposite.
That's what mental health looks like.
Whatever mental health is, exactly.
And that is why everyone who prioritizes their mental health is today, unfortunately, cancelled.
