Ep. 1292 - The ‘Expert’ Class Is Crumbling Before Our Very Eyes
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the so-called expert class is crumbling before our very eyes, and that's great news for all of us. Also, an alleged Republican turns a hearing about Hunter Biden into a discussion about white privilege. And police in Canada are warning residents not to post videos of thieves stealing their packages because it violates the privacy of the thieves. Plus, plastic surgery is more popular than ever, especially among Gen Z. What explains this obsession?
Ep.1292
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ProVia - Save over 50% Starter Package + Free Shipping + Free Gift
https://www.proviahair.com/Walsh
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
- - -
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, the so-called expert class is crumbling before our very eyes, and that's great news for all of us.
Also, an alleged Republican turns a hearing about Hunter Biden into a discussion about white privilege, and police in Canada are warning residents not to post videos of thieves stealing their packages because it violates the privacy of the thieves.
Plus, plastic surgery is more popular than ever, especially among Gen Z. What explains this obsession?
We'll talk about all of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Are you one of the tens of millions of American men and women dealing with premature hair
Maybe you're scared about inheriting that thinning look because it runs in your family.
Start 2024 Off Right with a real solution that delivers on its promise without the harsh side effects, unwanted chemicals, and no need for a prescription.
Provia uses a safe, natural ingredient called Procapyl to effectively target the three main causes of premature hair thinning and loss by supporting healthy scalp circulation, the delivery of nourishing nutrients and healthy hair follicle anchoring to your scalp.
Provia guarantees more hair on your head than in the shower or on your comb and is effective for men and women of any age and safe on colored, treated, and styled hair.
It's that easy.
Right now, new customers save over 50% plus free shipping on Provia's introductory package at ProviaHair.com slash Walsh.
Every package includes a full 60-day supply of Provia serum for daily use, plus the Provia Super Concentrate for faster, more noticeable results.
And every order includes your choice of free gift right now at checkout.
Provia works guaranteed or 100% of your money back.
Don't wait!
Order now and save an extra 10% and free shipping at proviahare.com slash walsh.
That's proviahare.com slash walsh.
Well, the Secretary of Defense is out of commission, and no one's even pretending anymore that the Commander-in-Chief has any idea what's going on in the world.
So, unless you're heavily invested in weapons manufacturing or you sit on the board of Raytheon or something like that, you probably have a lot of urgent questions about last night's U.S.
military strikes in Yemen, if you even heard about them.
Now, you might wonder, for example, who exactly the Houthis are and why they made the decision to shut down a critical international trade route by terrorizing ships In the Red Sea.
It's almost like they're asking for U.S.
military involvement in the region or something.
You might also have questions about whether this is somehow a wag-the-dog scenario, given the Biden administration's disastrous poll numbers.
But regardless of your position on yesterday's missile strikes, these are all fair concerns.
You're not a conspiracy theorist for asking about them.
After years of relentless lies from cable news quote-unquote experts, the skepticism isn't really noteworthy at all.
I mean, we're all skeptical.
In fact, at this point, even the experts themselves have basically conceded, in so many words, that they can't be trusted.
And that's become especially clear in just the past few days.
From the airline industry to medicine, we are witnessing the collapse of the expert class in this country.
They've lost their legitimacy, and they know it.
Now, you may have heard about Tony Fauci's admission in a closed-door House committee hearing the other day.
Fauci began by denying that he ever played a role in shutting down any schools in this country.
And that's a lie, of course.
Fauci's agency provided official guidance calling on schools to shut down, which exposed those schools to civil liability if they refused.
And then Fauci was asked about his infamous guidance that everybody needed to socially distance or stand six feet apart.
Now, as you probably remember, this six-foot rule became gospel in the country basically overnight.
Every business and school and government building and airport put up little placards and stickers on the floor instructing everybody to obey.
And at the time, we were told that the science, quote-unquote, mandated this rule.
But the other day, Tony Fauci admitted Here's a New York Post reporter describing Fauci's closed-door testimony.
there was in fact no scientific data justifying this whatsoever.
He says essentially that they just made it up on the spot.
Here's a New York Post reporter describing Fauci's closed door testimony.
Listen.
Fauci also had the opportunity to speak with members about other guidance he provided,
such as six feet of distance to slow the spread of the virus.
Fauci surprisingly said to the committee members that that guidance, quote, sort of just appeared, end quote, without scientific input.
Dr. Ashish Jha, the dean of Brown University Medical School and an eventual COVID response coordinator in President Biden's White House, said that the six feet requirement never struck him as, quote, particularly sensical, end quote.
So, we're told that the guidance just appeared, miraculously, like manna from heaven.
Nobody knows where it came from or why, but there it was.
Six feet apart, they said.
For no reason.
Like, why not seven?
Why not ten?
Why not a hundred?
Why not three?
Many of us asked this at the time.
Well, it turns out there's no reason.
Literally no reason.
Six feet is just what was decided by whoever decided it.
This isn't the first time that Tony Fauci has admitted to lying to the public about COVID.
At one point, you may remember that he told the New York Times that he had deliberately misled Americans about the concept of herd immunity by continually moving the goalposts.
Now, you may remember herd immunity.
That was the idea that once a certain number of people became immune to COVID, whether through infection or vaccination, then the virus becomes less of a threat.
And we can resume our normal lives.
But somehow, Fauci's threshold for herd immunity kept changing throughout the pandemic.
He kept saying that a bigger percentage of Americans needed to get the virus before herd immunity would apply.
And then when the Times asked him why he kept changing the percentage, he admitted it was just social engineering.
This week, though, Fauci dropped the pretense of science entirely.
He just admitted that he was making stuff up.
He was misleading us about pretty much every aspect of COVID, from social distancing to masks to the COVID shot to herd immunity.
And now that he's out of powder, he can finally admit it because he knows he won't suffer any consequences.
Not that he would have suffered them while he was in power.
This is one of those stories that's getting buried for obvious reasons.
I mean, for one thing, nobody wants to talk about Fauci anymore.
Or COVID, or the lockdowns.
For a lot of different reasons, liberals and conservatives alike would prefer not to revisit the time in very recent history when Fauci was the most visible and powerful person in the country.
And also, admittedly, there's a lot going on in the world.
Fine.
But if you take ten steps back, you'll see that the new expert class, the people who demand to be taken as seriously as Fauci, are struggling to replace him.
Like him, they simply have no credibility.
Recall again the story that broke the other day on Axios.
We talked about it.
And here's what they wrote, quote, Breaking.
The climate of 2023 was the hottest seen in at least 125,000 years.
For the first time in instrument records, daily global average temperatures went well above a Paris guardrail of two degrees Celsius.
Now, along with that scary headline, Axios includes a chart that only goes back until the 1970s, strangely enough.
But all the same, they're insistent that 2023 was the hottest climate the world has ever seen in 125,000 years.
Now, you know, I could reference a bunch of other experts who contradict this theory.
I could tell you all about Steve Malloy, a senior fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, who debunked this garbage science in the Wall Street Journal recently.
Malloy pointed out that, if you can believe it, We actually didn't have satellites or temperature stations to measure temperature 125,000 years ago.
He also writes that even today, most of the world isn't covered by temperature stations, and the temperature stations we do have are still very inaccurate.
In fact, he wrote, it's been estimated that 96% of US temperature stations produce corrupted data.
So, what does that mean?
It means we can't trust temperature data today.
Much less the information we're getting from before human civilization was formed.
But I don't really have to cite any of this because it's all obvious to anyone with any common sense whatsoever.
That's why the comments on that Axios article are pretty much uniformly negative because people just aren't buying the lies anymore.
This is a trend that's been causing a lot of panic.
You know, people not buying it anymore.
Causing a lot of panic among experts and institutions that aren't used to being challenged, including pretty much every corporate backer of the anti-white scam known as diversity, equity, and inclusion.
These are institutions that insist that DEI is a core part of their mission.
They say that their companies and universities simply cannot survive without it.
But the moment you expose them, they run away in horror.
All you have to do is shine a light on what they're doing and they give up.
That's what just happened to Spirit Aerosystems.
That's the manufacturer of the door that blew out on the Alaska Airlines flight recently while the plane was taking off.
Yesterday I came across a TikTok video that was uploaded by Spirit Aerosystems employees or, you know, an intern possibly.
Uploaded about a year ago.
And this is footage from a conference for women in engineering.
The video caught my eye because the hashtags were Women in Engineering and Spirits Dream Team.
This is the dream team that, you know, is at the company that makes these doors.
So naturally, I clicked on the video.
I wanted to see what an engineering dream team looks like at a company that is very clearly incompetent at engineering.
And here's what I found.
Let's go girls!
[Music]
(air whooshing)
Well, you know, what they lack in engineering talent and skill they make up for in sass.
And so now you can shout girl power while you're being sucked out of a giant hole in the side of a plane at 30,000 feet.
You know, take a little solace at least that these ladies, you know, these are some sassy ladies who made that door that has now killed you.
And this is the dream team of the company that made the door that fell off a passenger plane flying over Portland the other day.
And within about an hour of me posting that video on Twitter, the Spirit Aerosystems employee or intern took it down.
You know, it's been up for a year.
And then, coincidentally, you know, all I did was, it's not like I went to some private place.
It's not like I took it off some private hard drive somewhere.
It was on their TikTok.
It's been there for a year.
And all I said was, hey guys, look at this thing they posted.
And they took it down.
Because they know that this is absurd.
They know it's completely incompatible with their mission.
All you have to do is expose it and they fold.
Same thing just happened at Johns Hopkins Medicine.
Hopkins DEI office, which is something that exists for some reason, sent out an email to employees alerting them to potential patients who have unearned privilege.
The list includes males, Christians, white people, English-speaking people, middle or owning class people, cisgender people, heterosexuals, and able-bodied people, among others.
I'll say that, again, Johns Hopkins Medicine believes that males, Christians, white people, English-speaking people, middle-class people, cisgender people, heterosexuals, and able-bodied people are inherently privileged.
And, of course, the word privilege is a very thinly-coated word.
What Hopkins is really saying, of course, is that they don't like Christians or whites or heterosexuals, etc.
They're not looking at any real markers of privilege.
They're just indulging their bigotry.
That's the unmistakable message here.
Keep in mind, this is a hospital and a medical school we're talking about.
They have the ability to administer treatments that can save people or kill them, if they're done the wrong way.
Their only job is treating people.
They shouldn't be making lists about groups of people who, you know, they have resentment towards.
That kind of thing is threatening, actually.
And they know that.
And that's why, as soon as this was published online by The X Account and Wokeness, Hopkins took their little hit list down.
Their DEI office issued a completely insincere apology, and they just kind of scampered away.
Now again, this is a pattern.
Also yesterday, the same day that Hopkins took down its DEI list and Spirit took down its TikTok video, Southwest Airlines deleted a post on X about its, quote, all-female flight crew.
The post read, all-female flight crew?
Go off, Queens.
But as it turns out, people don't care about the gender diversity of their flight crew.
It's not what they're looking for.
They care about competence.
They care about not dying.
And in no uncertain terms, thousands of people let Southwest know that.
So once again, they deleted the post and pretended it never happened.
Now, it's easy to take this kind of thing for granted, but just a few years ago, it would have been unheard of.
I mean, Fauci never would have admitted fault.
Neither would Johns Hopkins, as they told us to stay socially distant and wear masks.
Neither would the airlines, as they bombarded us with propaganda about the importance of DEI.
But now these frauds are actually being held to account.
When they try to lie, like Axios did with their climate alarmists, no one buys it anymore.
When they try to push their ham-fisted social engineering, people call them out on it.
And what this basically means is that the rule of the expert class is effectively over.
They can't tell us to swallow DEI anymore, any more than they can tell us to wear a mask or stand six feet apart.
And for everyone who cares about competence and public safety, this is, you know, the best possible outcome.
For bloated DEI bureaucracies, on the other hand, this development marks, at long last, the beginning of the end.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Last year because of you, Preborn's network of clinics saved over 58,000 babies.
So thanks to you and to everyone who made this possible.
We came down here to Jacksonville with nothing, just the clothes on our back.
And I knew I had to change.
And it was time to change.
So I was just getting on my feet.
And I met someone.
And I got pregnant.
And I wasn't ready.
How am I going to raise a baby?
And I barely can take care of my daughter and myself right now.
I googled abortions and I scheduled an appointment.
Thinking it was an abortion clinic.
They did my first ultrasound.
Seeing the ultrasound, it impacted me to the point to where I broke down crying.
The nurse reminded me that it was a blessing from God.
I was thinking about if I wanted to keep the baby or not.
When I was at the clinic, after they told me how far along I was and that the baby had a heartbeat, I cried.
And they gave me a minute by myself in the room.
I broke down and I prayed to God.
I asked the Lord to, when I walk out of those doors, to just give me the strength to be able to go through the pregnancy.
I made my decision at that time.
Women's Center called me out of the blue and said that they had a lot of stuff for me and they would like for me to come in.
They gave me cribs and diapers and so much stuff.
It's amazing.
It touches my heart.
It makes me feel special.
It makes me feel like there's people In the world that does care, they gave me hope, the strength to believe in myself that I could do it.
Treasure I chose because I know that she was a gift from God and she's just gonna be a treasure.
I'm super grateful that I'm able to go down this journey with my daughter and I'm just super glad that I didn't have abortion.
I've learned how to trust God, how to listen to God and to trust myself and to do the right thing and not be selfish.
It feels amazing.
When Antoinette found out that she was pregnant, she was in a bad place.
She didn't know how she could raise her child on her own.
She searched for an abortion clinic, but God led her to a pre-born clinic where she was introduced to her baby via ultrasound.
When she saw her baby and heard her heartbeat, She broke down crying, and the nurse reminded her that a child is a blessing.
Antoinette chose life.
Preborn saves 200 babies each and every day for just $28 a month.
You can sponsor an ultrasound and help save a life.
When a mother sees her baby on the ultrasound and hears his heartbeat, she is twice as likely to choose life.
So let's join together and help mothers choose life.
All right, a lot of ground to cover here.
Let's start with this.
Hunter Biden showed up at the House Oversight and Accountability Committee this week for a hearing about whether he'll be held in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena.
So, you know, Republicans are still going after Hunter.
We're still doing the Hunter Biden thing, which is fine.
Which is good.
He's a crook and should be held accountable.
I will say that there was intense focus on Hunter before the election in 2020.
And I said at the time, much to the chagrin of many conservatives, that politically, politically, the Hunter Biden stuff is not a winner.
Now, I'm not saying it's a loser.
I'm not saying that it'll hurt you.
I'm not saying that.
It's just nothing is what it is.
Most people don't care.
Almost nobody outside of conservative pundits and people on Twitter care about the Hunter Biden story at all.
They're bored by it.
They don't care.
They don't know about it.
It doesn't matter to them.
So, it's not a political winner.
You know, it's not going to help you win an election.
It doesn't mean you shouldn't try to hold them accountable for being corrupt.
You know, I'm only saying that some Republicans clearly think that this is a good political platform for them, and it's just, it's not that.
And now here we are in 2024 and we're doing the Hunter Biden stuff again.
And, you know, this is not a defense of him.
Throw him in jail, toss the key away.
As far as I'm concerned, that would be fantastic.
Just as long as you realize that not one single person on election day is going to make their decision based on their feelings about Hunter Biden.
That's just it.
So, continue along, hold him accountable.
You don't need to try to turn it into a political slam dunk, because it's not.
In this case, it's just you doing the right thing.
And I bring that up for a reason, because you want to bring a man, hold him in contempt of Congress, well you should.
He's guilty of that, along with many other crimes.
But of course you have some Republicans who want to use these kinds of hearings and things as a platform for themselves to get attention and to score political points.
And that brings us to the performance, and I emphasize the word performance, of Representative Nancy Mace.
She's allegedly a Republican.
She's one of the Republicans that likes to turn any hearing she's in into a chance to get some play on Fox News.
She loves talking about Hunter Biden because it's, for her, it's very safe.
It's a safe thing to go after.
It's a safe topic.
It's easy red meat.
And it's safe, you know.
And all she cares about is trying to create viral moments.
She's basically one of these congressional versions of a TikTok influencer, and we have a lot of those, and she's one of them.
And she's also a left-wing plant on top of it.
So case in point, listen to this moment that was supposed to be a dunk, you know, it was supposed to be a mic drop moment from Nancy Mays, and was sadly treated as such by some on the right.
But let's listen to what she said in this hearing.
Chair recognizes Ms.
Mace from South Carolina.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Comer.
First of all, my first question is, who bribed Hunter Biden to be here today?
That's my first question.
Second question, you are the epitome of white privilege coming into the Oversight Committee, spitting in our face, ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed.
What are you afraid of?
You have no balls to come up here and— Mr. Chairman, point of inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentlelady wants to hear from Hunter Biden, we can hear from him right now, Mr. Chairman.
Let's take a vote and hear from Hunter Biden.
What are you afraid of?
Hold on, hold on.
Order, order.
Are women allowed to speak in here or no?
Are women allowed to speak in here or no?
You keep interrupting me.
I'll interrupt the chairman.
Shut up, Nancy.
No, no.
Well, you're not allowed to speak anymore.
Uh, my God.
These morons.
I mean, it is embarrassing.
I'm embarrassed for them.
And these are the people that are elected to represent us in Congress.
What in the world are we doing electing people like Nancy Mace?
She's in South Carolina.
I don't know what her district is.
If you live in that district, what is wrong with you?
Like, what about this woman was appealing to you?
Explain that.
I want someone to explain it.
I want a Nancy Mace voter to step up to the plate and tell me what about her, of all the options, was appealing to you.
And so Nancy Mace trots out the white privilege line.
You know, you Dems are the real racists, that whole thing.
Oh, you got him that time.
Wow.
Checkmate.
And then she follows it up by screeching about how women aren't allowed to speak.
Like, shut up.
It's one leftist cliche after another, and yet I saw this clip being passed around on Twitter by conservatives who were impressed by it.
Some conservatives that I respect, or respected, were sharing this clip.
Like, oh, Nancy, you gotta see this.
Look at this.
She really took Hunter Biden to task.
Did you watch the clip that you're posting yourself?
Really?
Her ranting about white privilege and how women aren't allowed to speak?
You find that impressive?
There's zero difference between what Nancy May said and what AOC would say.
It's exactly the same.
She wouldn't be targeting Hunter Biden, but everything else is the same.
Well, she really showed them.
She said the word balls.
That's what, yeah, that's what we need.
You know, we need a woman who's willing to say the word balls.
That's the really impressive.
She really tells it like it is.
You idiots.
I'm sorry, but if you listen to that clip of Nancy Mays as a conservative and you're impressed by it, then you just, you have the IQ of a doorknob, and your opinion is irrelevant.
I mean, have some self-respect.
This is the epitome of lame, performative Fox News boomer con posturing.
And if it still impresses you, then you're hopeless.
Now, this started, it gets worse.
Because Nancy Mace, this is supposed to be a hearing about Hunter Biden.
Again, important.
Not a political, you know, it's not a political, it doesn't matter politically, no one cares.
But still important.
There are plenty of things that are important that don't matter politically.
And so let's talk about that.
But instead, Nancy Mace, the Republican, has decided to turn this into a hearing on white privilege, and that's what it became.
And so this started a whole back and forth about white privilege, and she was soon rebuked by a Democrat congresswoman.
Because, you know, the moment Nancy Mace brings up white privilege, and she thinks that it's a checkmate.
So we got him, we got you.
See, we used the term before you, and now we win.
But instead, every Democrat in the room, when they hear white privilege, their ears perk up.
They say, oh, yeah, so let's talk about that.
Instead, I would love, oh, you want to talk about white privilege instead of talking about Hunter Biden, the president's son, being corrupt?
Yes.
Awesome, Nancy.
Thank you.
Let's have that conversation instead.
And so that's exactly what happened.
And Democrat Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett had this to say.
I can't get over the gentle lady from South Carolina talking about white privilege.
It was a spit in the face, at least of mine as a black woman, for you to talk about what white privilege looks like, especially from that side of the aisle.
And let me quote your now-ousted speaker and what he had to say about the Republican Party and y'all's lack of diversity.
When you look at the Democrats, they actually look like America.
When I look at my party, we look like the most restrictive country club in America.
So, let me tell you something.
Y'all don't know what white privilege looks like, but I'mma show you a little bit of something.
You see, you want to talk about a two-tier justice system and this is the only time that y'all have ever referenced it when this country has a history when it comes to black and brown folk of having two separate sets of rules.
And right now what you want to do is have two separate sets of rules because Mr. Moskowitz offered y'all a fair situation.
He said he would- Y'all's got the white privilege.
Y'all don't know nothing about no white privilege, no cap y'all.
No, you think we got the white privilege?
Y'all got the white privilege.
Listen, that's y'all.
Y'all got white privilege.
We ain't got no white privilege.
You got the white privilege.
These are the dumbest people alive.
And they are in Congress.
Do you realize something?
Do you realize that the halls of Congress It used to be a place where extremely intelligent people spoke eloquently and debated the issues of the day in a mature and insightful manner.
Do you realize that?
It wasn't all that long ago.
I mean, go back 100 years.
It doesn't even matter.
Just choose any random time on the calendar prior to the last, I don't know, 30 years.
Go back 100 years and look at the transcript of any congressional hearing on any topic.
It doesn't even matter.
It doesn't matter the party.
It doesn't matter what they're talking about.
Read the way that they spoke.
And then compare it to today.
I mean, a debate between Nancy Mace and Jasmine Crockett is a debate between a rock and a tree stump, in terms of the collective IQ involved.
And that's what a hearing on the President's, like this is a serious issue.
The President of the United States, the President of the United States, his son, Is corrupt.
Involved in financial and political corruption.
He's in contempt of Congress.
And this is what we're doing.
And so that sends it back to Nancy Mace, who has a response on the white privilege point.
Let's watch that.
I'll give her a little more time.
Thank you, and then I'll yield to my colleague from Florida.
I'm going to try to be quick here because I was accused by my colleague on the other side of the aisle about my white privilege.
I want to say, number one, as a former ranking member of the Civil Rights Subcommittee under Chairman Raskin last session, I take great pride as a white female Republican to address the inadequacies in our country.
I come from a district where rich and poor is literally We get it, Nancy.
We get it.
I don't have white privilege.
You have it.
No, I don't have it.
You have it.
jail in the state of South Carolina has had seven or eight deaths in the last
Nuh-uh.
two years and I was there with our black and African-American council members.
We get it Nancy, we get it. I don't have white privilege, you have it. No I don't
have it, you have it. Nuh-uh, you're the one with the white privilege. My god just
hit us with the asteroid already.
Just hit us.
It doesn't... What's the apocalypse going to be?
A super volcano?
I'll take that.
Whatever gets the job done the fastest.
Let's just do that and get it over with.
Because I give up.
I mean... And Republicans vote.
They voted for this rambling, midwit, liberal, attention-monger moron.
They voted for it.
Just to be clear about this, by the way, it shouldn't need to be said.
White privilege is a myth.
There is no circumstance where a conservative, an alleged conservative, should ever unironically be accusing anyone of having white privilege, especially not Hunter Biden.
Nancy, you dumbass.
He has enormous privilege, yes.
But it's political privilege.
It's class privilege.
It's Democrat privilege.
If he was If Hunter Biden was Barack Obama's son, if his name was Hunter Obama rather than Hunter Biden, he would have the exact same privilege.
Okay, he'd be in the same boat.
Probably even better off, in fact.
That's because it's got nothing to do with his race.
Class privilege, economic privilege, political privilege, all of those exist, sure.
If you're in a higher financial bracket, yeah, there's all kinds of privilege that comes with that.
You know, if you're connected to political elites, if you are a political elite, there are tons of privileges that come with that.
And then if on top of all that, you're also a Democrat, a rich, politically connected Democrat, well, you cannot get more privilege than that.
That's all the privilege that is, well, I mean, then on top of it, if you add in, you know, you're gay and you start adding in some of the victim points as well, maybe come out as trans, I mean, that's, you know, then you can start adding some privilege there as well.
That's basically as privileged as it possibly gets, and so it has exactly nothing to do with race.
Nancy Mason knows that, of course, but I feel that it needed to be stipulated.
Okay.
I guess I'm in kind of a bad mood today, it turns out.
ABC7 has this.
A warning about porch pirates in Canada is getting a lot of attention, but not for why you'd think.
Police in Quebec issued a warning, not to the pirates themselves, but to victims.
They were advised that Canadian law means people should not be posting videos of alleged package thieves or risk violating their privacy.
Canadian police say instead anyone who has video evidence of a crime should turn it over to authorities and not post it publicly.
So here is comms officer Lieutenant Benoit Richard explaining this policy.
You cannot post the images yourself, because you have to remember that in Canada we have a presumption of innocence, and posting that picture could be a violation of private life.
Instead, he says if anything is stolen, call 911.
If you get some proof that somebody might have stolen something, then call the police, give the proof to the police, and then we'll do the investigation, we'll bring that person to justice, and we'll file some charges.
It's just amazing.
Amazing.
This epidemic of package thieves, people walking up onto private property and stealing your private property, and the police in Canada are worried about the thieves and the fact that they might be getting publicly shamed.
A presumption of innocence.
So I'm just trying to figure this out.
Maybe you can help me.
What is the scenario where somebody could walk up on your porch, steal your package off of your porch, and yet be innocent of stealing?
What's the scenario where you could watch someone steal something from you, and yet they are innocent of stealing?
Now, I understand that if you heard secondhand about someone stealing someone else's package, then you can't be sure the person is guilty.
If you saw somebody taking a package off of somebody else's door, it might look like they're still, but maybe they're not.
Maybe that's a family member who's going to collect packages because the resident is out of town.
Like, you know, sure.
But if it's your package, and it's your house, and it's your porch, and someone you don't know takes it, how could they be innocent?
Okay, presumption of innocence.
I think this is a general point that needs to be made here, because we hear this a lot about innocence until proven guilty.
Okay, innocence until proven guilty is a legal principle for courtrooms.
It doesn't apply to individual people.
It doesn't apply to us.
It doesn't apply to, like, your brain.
Okay?
In your brain, you're allowed to see that someone is doing something and know that they're guilty.
And you can even say it!
It's only in the courtroom.
The courtroom has to pretend, essentially, or come in with the premise, with the starting premise, that we don't know if you're guilty or not.
And we're going to find out in the course of the trial.
Outside the courtroom, we don't have to presume innocence of anybody.
Like, you can, if you see someone committing a crime, you obviously know they committed it, you don't have to pretend you don't know, because they haven't been, well, I just saw him do this thing, but I need to, but now, he needs to be, a jury of people who didn't see him do it, need to also say that he did it, in order for me to know that he did it.
No, no, no, that's not how it works.
Especially when you have a scenario where they could only be guilty, there's no other explanation.
Maybe, like, what would be a scenario where someone would take your package and they're not guilty of that?
Maybe if they thought that the package was a bomb and they were running up to take it to defuse the bomb, you know, and if this is like a die-hard scenario, Maybe then that wouldn't cause... They're still taking the package, though.
It doesn't belong to them.
So, technically, I don't know.
But maybe in that case, you wouldn't call that theft.
Is that the theory?
I guess it's technically possible.
But for all intents and purposes, if somebody takes your package, you can be certain that a theft took place.
Just like if somebody walks up and punches you in the face.
You could be certain that an assault has taken place.
It happened to you.
It happened to your face.
You were right there.
Right?
And you know what the thing is?
They might end up...
Walking free.
A jury might, or a judge might say, well, we don't know if that really happened.
Everybody else might not, but you know, because you saw it.
The Hill has this report.
Jason DeFord, the rapper turned country singer known as Jelly Roll, appeared before Congress on Wednesday to urge lawmakers to pass legislation combating the supply and distribution of fentanyl.
DeFord testified at a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on stopping the flow of fentanyl, where he called on lawmakers to get the Fend Off Fentanyl Act across the finish line.
The legislation passed the Senate last July, but has yet to make it through the House.
Committee Chair Sherrod Brown said, I'm guessing most of you didn't have jelly roll testifies at Senate Banking Committee on your 24 bingo card, but few speak and sing as eloquently as openly as, shall we say, viscerally about addiction as Mr. DeFord.
I'm not going to get hung up on it, but I really don't need the Twitter cliches at a Senate Banking Committee hearing.
This wasn't on your bingo card.
We're talking about the fentanyl crisis at a Banking Committee hearing.
We don't need the little... What, are you going to put a gif up on the screen as well?
I am in a bad mood.
I just am.
I'll submit it.
That's not the point.
Let's hear what Jelly Roll had to say.
I've attended more funerals than I care to share with y'all.
This committee, I could sit here and cry for days about the caskets I've carried of people I loved dearly, deeply.
In my soul, good people.
Not just drug addicts.
Uncles.
Friends, cousins, normal people.
Some people that just got in a car wreck and started taking a pain pill to manage it.
One thing led to the other.
How fast it spirals out of control, I don't think people truly, truly understand.
So many people.
Equally, I think it's important for me to tell y'all that I'm not here to defend the use of illegal drugs.
And I also understand the paradox of my history as a drug dealer standing in front of this committee.
But equally, I think that's what makes me perfect to talk about this.
I was a part of the problem.
I am here now standing as a man that wants to be a part of the solution.
I brought my community down.
He gave a powerful testimony.
I'm glad that he was there.
And he's 100% right.
This is a crisis.
It's an epidemic.
Talked about it on the show a few days ago.
And as for this law, this Fendall-Fentanyl Act, from what little I've read about it, seems good.
But the real way to solve the problem, of course, is to go much further and much and much harder.
And as you've heard me argue, you know, the makers, suppliers and sellers of fentanyl and similar street drugs are mass murderers.
They are intentionally killing thousands of people.
Now, yes, the people are taking the poison willingly, sort of, but so what?
I mean, I was thinking about this earlier.
You think about This argument from people that, yeah, you know, they're selling a poison that's killing thousands of people, but they're not really mass murderers because they're not.
The people are choosing to take the poison.
But you don't apply that.
Like, Jim Jones and the Jamestown Massacre, People's Temple, Jamestown Massacre, you're familiar with the drinking the Kool-Aid, cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
500 people, or however many it was, hundreds of people died.
Now, why do we call it a massacre?
You know, the people all drank the Kool-Aid with cyanide.
They drank it willingly.
At least the adults did.
As far as I know, many of them, many of them at least, knew even that it was poisoned.
It was an act of suicide.
And let's just say, for the sake of argument, that they did know.
Most of them knew they were taking it.
Well, does that change anything?
Does that make it not a massacre?
And if Jim Jones had not killed himself, Would anyone object to him being brought up on 500, or however many it was, charges of capital murder and being executed?
I don't think anyone would object.
You orchestrated the mass quote-unquote suicide of hundreds of people.
You poisoned hundreds of people.
You're a mass murderer?
Of course you should get the death penalty for that.
So why does that not apply to drug dealers and drug suppliers?
Now, if your answer is that, well, People's Temple drinking the Kool-Aid, that was different because they were brainwashed.
They were brainwashed.
True, sure, they were brainwashed.
And that adds to the guilt of the cult leader.
The people that are taking the fentanyl, okay, they're not psychologically manipulated, they are neurologically manipulated, which is even worse.
These are all addicts.
And so the drug dealers get them addicted, And then the addicts quote-unquote choose to continue taking the poison.
So, one way or another, no matter how you slice it, in my mind these people have even more culpability, if anything, for poisoning thousands of people than does a cult leader who poisoned hundreds of people.
It is a massacre.
So what's happening with fentanyl is a massacre.
It is a mass killing that is going on every single day, being orchestrated and funded and profited on by drug dealers and drug suppliers.
And so, if you want to put a stop to this, then you have to arrest these people, and you have to make an example of them, and you do that by giving them the death penalty.
And, you know, that's not going to stop all drugs from being sold forever, but that will make a dent in the problem in a way that nothing else ever will.
And I just don't see any moral argument against it.
In fact, I find the moral arguments against it to be, like, pretty absurd.
All right, I found myself, before we get to the Next segment.
I found myself yesterday in another controversy.
I was trending on Twitter because of this.
Yesterday on the show, if you watched, you remember I was responding to a comment from somebody who speculated that all those men who are lining up at Target or wherever to buy pink Stanley Cups are just buying them for Valentine's Day gifts.
And I made the point that no man buys a Valentine's Day gift for his wife or girlfriend in January.
Okay?
No man is doing that.
No man is even thinking about Valentine's Day in January.
No man is even, like, aware that Valentine's Day is the next month.
I mean, you're aware of it if you ask them and they think about it, but that's not anywhere in their mind at the moment in January.
And in fact, as I explained, You know, no man buys a Valentine's Day gift before February 11th.
And, as I explained, buying a Valentine's Day gift in January would be gay.
You know, it would literally make you a homosexual.
Literally.
And that's what I said.
Obviously being entirely serious.
And as you might expect, Media Matters heard this, and they swooped into action.
They were on the case, and they clipped part of that conversation, and they posted it.
And they posted it in a way to make it seem like I was being completely serious, because of course I was.
Who would joke about a thing like that?
You know, calling random things gay.
It's like, no one ever makes those kinds of jokes.
It's not like that's a comedy classic.
It's not like that's the kind of joke that's always funny no matter what.
Just pointing out a random thing and calling it gay.
But, you know, that was not the case.
It was totally serious, and so they clipped it.
This is the part that they clipped, just for context.
But, of course, 97% of us are buying the Valentine's Day gift on the way home from work on February 14th.
But buying a Valentine's Day gift for your wife a month early is the gayest thing you could do.
Don't do that, because if it's January 3rd and you tell your wife, I got you a Valentine's Day gift already, she's going to say, so you're gay.
Well, that kind of ruins Valentine's Day, doesn't it?
Look, I don't make the rules, okay?
I just follow the science, and that's all I do.
And here's the good news.
Yes, you are gay if you buy a Valentine's Day gift a month ahead of time, or more than four days ahead of time, actually.
But, for an anniversary gift, you're allowed to buy that six days ahead of time without being gay.
You buy it seven days ahead of time, then you're gay.
You buy it a week or more ahead of time, you're gay.
But, you know, you have six days.
That's a pretty good window.
And that's good news.
For Christmas, you get a five-day window.
Before the gayness sets in.
And now you're thinking, what about birthdays?
Well, that gets a little bit complicated.
So, if your wife is celebrating a decade birthday, say 30, 40, 50, 60, then I'd give you two weeks.
Well, I don't give you, but science gives you two weeks before you're gay.
Now, if it's a birthday in the intervals between the decades, then you have a four-day window.
Anyway, this is just a science.
This is physics, actually.
I think Albert Einstein was the first person who talked about that.
I didn't even make it up.
I'm literally quoting Albert Einstein, who talked about this a long time ago.
So anyway, that clip went viral, and thousands of people responding to it.
You know, I'm trending on Twitter over that.
The bar for trending is pretty low these days.
And there's a lot going on in the world.
Like, there's actually a lot going on, you know?
And I think I made it into the top 15 of all- I made it into the top 15 of all the topics in the whole world that people were talking about on Twitter yesterday was me saying that you're gay for buying a Valentine's Day gift a month early.
Like, that- that's just- And I'm the one- Look, I don't- I don't- I'm not gonna object to the attention, but at the same time, come on.
Let's raise our standards a little bit.
So, you know, you have lots of people on the left responding outraged, again, taking it very seriously.
And then, as usual, people on the right, or at least not on the left, are also taking the Media Matters clip at face value and believing they're framing completely.
So there were a bunch of apparent alleged conservatives responding to that clip you just saw.
With lengthy rebuttals.
Okay, so Mary Catherine Ham said, Twitter conservative masculinity discussion seems to keep saying and demonstrating that demonstrating competence is effeminate.
Know how to help your partner?
The gay.
Thought about a holiday?
Ahead of time about a holiday?
Lame.
Can parent small children alone because you're capable at life?
Not just a job?
Simp.
But competence is hot, though.
Jennifer Greenberg said, um, no, being organized and planning ahead tells your wife you care.
And actually, it's smart to make dinner reservations or book a wine tasting now because they fill up fast.
I mean, look, if buying a Valentine's Day gift, you know, a month ahead of time is gay, then booking a wine tasting a month ahead of time.
I mean, now that's...
That's far worse.
Anyway, I guarantee it'll go over better than CVS chocolates and the last flowers the grocery store had.
CVS has great chocolates.
There's nothing wrong with CVS chocolates.
Dean Abbott said, this level of understanding is common among low-awareness men.
More than a few identify their poor time management, their lack of forethought and planning, their insensitivity to the impact of their actions, with the core of masculinity.
For them, masculinity is not defined by the things a man cherishes enough to die for, but by the number of things he doesn't care about.
Okay.
A lot of that.
A lot of like little, little think pieces.
Um, analyzing my, uh, my comments about buying Valentine's Day gifts.
Now, usually, like, usually in this sort of scenario, uh, I will keep up the joke until my dying breath.
And I'll never break character, I'll never let the bit go.
Usually, right?
Like, if I'm joking about something and people take it seriously, then that just means I'm gonna, I will never, ever admit that I was joking, ever.
But I do have to violate my own rules here, just for a moment, to marvel at this, because And we've seen it a million times, but still, you know, if you see that Media Matters clip, obviously totally out of context, obviously joking around, and then you respond to it, as thousands of people, including conservatives, have done, as though I meant it, as a serious analysis, there are only two possible reasons why you would do that.
And one is that you are indescribably dumb.
And that you so lack basic comprehension that you somehow don't understand the most obvious joke in the world when you hear it.
So that's possible.
And then the second option is that you know it's a joke, and yet you're going along with the dishonest, ridiculous framing because you want to take a shot at me and score points.
Which is, you know, which is the thing, the activities, what people do, is what Twitter exists.
For people to take things that are meant a certain way, clearly, and then everyone just sort of pretend that they don't know how it was meant.
And everyone, all together, there's an agreement.
Let's all, yeah, we're all just gonna, let's have fun today.
We're gonna pretend that we don't understand what this means.
Now, for most people on the left, it's clearly, you know, option two is what they do.
Now, many of them are very stupid, and they don't understand humor, and they don't understand jokes, and so option one.
So it's a little bit of both.
But, you know, obviously with someone like me, they're looking for any chance they can to score a point, and so I get that.
But for the alleged non-leftists, that's what I find interesting.
You know, even like Dana Lash jumped in on this one with a snarky little comment about what I said.
It's like, you know clearly that this is a joke.
You know what Media Matters is.
You know what they do.
Right?
They do it to you.
And so, what are you doing?
Why are you doing this?
For conservatives, it's like this instinct.
It's like this suicidal instinct by conservatives.
They can't help themselves.
They love to jump on a dog pile against one of their own people.
They'll do it.
Every time Media Matters starts a dishonest dog pile on me, or on anybody else, You know, if it's happening to Ben Shapiro or anybody else here, or Candace, like, you, and you look at the, at all the people that are doing the little quote tweets and adding their two cents and all, it's like there are a lot of conservatives that are doing it.
Even though they know, like, they know better.
And, and why?
It's like, it's, you know, some of it, there's probably a lot behind it, I mean, there's, Personal jealousies and resentment and whatever and you know there's probably people who I thought I was friendly with who don't like me for whatever reason who cares but it's also
There's also this level of instinct by many on the right.
It's hard to wrap your mind around, but it's a self-destructive instinct that the left does not have.
Their instinct is the other way.
Their instinct is, circle the wagons, that person's with us, we're going to defend them.
Like, we'll defend them first and then ask questions, you know?
We'll defend them and then we'll find out why we're defending them.
And for people on the right, it's the other way around.
You know, they see one of their own people getting attacked for some dumb reason, and their first instinct is like, yeah, that person sucks, that's terrible.
And then, and then they'll, maybe they'll go back and it's like, why are we going after that guy again?
Oh, because it was a joke.
Okay.
It's, uh, it's very bizarre.
All right.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Okay, just a couple comments here quickly.
We talked yesterday a little bit about the California efforts to ban tackle football across the entire state for kids under the age of 12, I believe it was.
A few comments on that.
First one says, every time the left doesn't like something for their kids, they decide it's bad for everyone else's kids and they pass laws.
You don't like it, let your kids, let your boys play badminton.
Mine will play football.
And that That's true, and that also brings up a point, I think that one of the other comments brings up, that I, somehow a point I didn't make when we were talking about this yesterday, which is that, you know, you're talking about parental rights, and let parents decide.
Well, so on this particular topic, their position is that parents shouldn't be allowed to decide to put their kids and their young kids in football, it's too dangerous.
And yet, you know, They will tell you that parents absolutely should be able to decide whether to put their kids on chemical castration drugs.
So on that, let the parents decide.
But on football, for a 10-year-old, that is something that's so dangerous and harmful that we have to take that decision away from parents.
It just could not be more backwards, right?
Especially when the hormones and the puberty blockers, it's not that that might cause damage or that might have a bad side effect.
It is damaging.
It is intended to damage the body.
It is intended to, at a minimum, interfere with the normal development and growth of the body.
With football, injuries are, they happen, but they are definitely a side effect.
The point of the game is not to get injured.
Oh, and someone else does bring that up.
Imagine thinking kids can choose to play football under 12 and also thinking they can choose to be another gender, or can't choose to play football under 12, but can choose to be another gender and get chemically or physically castrated.
Right.
Anna says, My son is turning nine in a few days.
This past fall, we did his first season of tackle football, and it was, without a doubt, the absolute best youth sports experience we ever had.
He had fun.
He overcame his fear and anxiety.
He grew in strength physically and emotionally.
He made friends, and he got to do something viscerally male and aggressive without being punished for it.
Youth tackle football is an awesome thing and indispensable for kids who don't have a male role model around.
California is wrong.
I think indispensable is the right word.
It's not for every kid.
Not every kid wants to play football.
Most don't, obviously.
But, like, I guess here's the point.
If you have the kind of boy, the kind of son, who would love tackle football and who's, like, made for that kind of sport, if you have that kind of son that you're raising, there really isn't any other sport that's going to be an acceptable substitute for him.
There are a lot of kids, there are a lot of 8-year-old boys out there that want to play baseball.
Baseball is great for them.
But it sounds like for your son, it's just like football is exactly what he needs to be doing.
And you take him out of that and say, no, we're going to do tennis instead.
It's just not going to work.
And finally, banning tackle football is a bad idea unless you want to prevent a generation of boys from having brain injuries.
And where's your evidence of that, by the way?
So there's a generation of boys that have grown up with brain... a generation have grown up with brain injuries.
Now, I know, you know, the idea that, like, every person who's played tackle football has horrific permanent brain injuries.
I understand that that's just commonly believed and understood.
And so when I question that, it sounds almost ludicrous to question it.
But I do question it, you know.
The risk of brain injuries in football, especially at that age, it's not non-existent.
It is overstated, okay?
People talk about it like every single person who finishes playing football is paralyzed or something, when those kinds of injuries are extremely rare.
But the other thing, as I mentioned yesterday, is that... Yes, there's the physical risks involved in football.
If you take that away, Just like we take away other sports and games that we've deemed to be too violent or whatever.
You take all that away.
You are not taking away the kind of male propensity for wanting to take risks and wanting to engage in violent and aggressive behavior.
You're not taking that away.
That's still there.
And so many of these boys are going to look...
It's like every day on Twitter if you go and scroll down your feed you'll see some video pop up of a, you know, someone like roller skating on the, or skateboarding, not roller skating, skateboarding on the edge of a building or something like that.
That sort of thing.
Taking, and people are doing it for TikTok clicks and all the rest of it, but taking like crazy suicidal type risks.
Um, and things like TikTok and social media make that even worse because they incentivize it.
But the point is that, and it's almost always young men and boys that are doing that sort of thing.
Girls don't do it.
But that's because there is that propensity.
There is that need for like adrenaline and taking risks and everything.
And so, uh, either we are going to give kids an outlet for that sort of behavior, a controlled, disciplined outlet, you know, or you just release them into the world and let them figure it out for themselves.
And that I think proves to be disastrous most of the time.
It's a new year, but leftist companies are still up to their same old dirty tricks.
Ladies, it's time to help your guys wash out the woke once and for all with Jeremy Razor's new line of men's staples.
He'll love the tea tree and argon oil infused shampoo and conditioner, exfoliating charcoal body wash, or if he's a soap traditionalist, For something to hold on to?
Well, then he has the Oatmeal and Citrus Soap Scrub.
They smell great.
They're all made right here in the USA by a men's grooming company that doesn't hate men.
Shop the new Jeremy's Hair, Face, and Body Wash Collection and kick woke out of his bathroom.
And when you visit the store, do it through my URL so I get the referral bragging rights.
Go to dailywire.com slash Walsh and treat your man to some great Jeremy's Razors products today.
That's dailywire.com slash Walsh.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
This new generation is getting innovative, often in the most grotesque ways imaginable.
So, for instance, one of the hottest procedures on the market is called keratopigmentation, which, along with being a great scrabble word that I think I pronounced correctly, actually, is also a surgery to change the color of your eyes.
The New York Post reports, quote, Don't want to be a brown-eyed girl anymore?
If you're not afraid of the risks, including going blind, iris color-changing surgery, the latest procedure to go viral online, might be for you.
The process, known as keratopigmentation, involves using a laser to create a tunnel in the superficial cornea in order to place pigment.
But experts are warning it could lead to many terrifying conditions, including blindness, not to mention it's not approved for cosmetic use.
Just last week, the French company New Color, experts in keratopigmentation, Shared footage of one patient who changed her brown eyes to a stark, vibrant blue in a clip scoring 16 million views on TikTok.
But for one model, it cost her her precious vision.
Nadine Bruna traveled to Colombia to change her hazel orbs to a bright grey, undergoing a different procedure that uses a silicone implant, only to lose 80% of her vision in her right eye and 50% in her left.
That is surprising.
Apparently if you let someone burrow a tunnel into your cornea and inject it with ink or, I guess, an implant or whatever it was in that case, you know, it might do some damage to your eyes.
It turns out that intentionally damaging your eyes will result in damaged eyes.
Who could have known?
And by the way, if you're wondering what the end result of this eye surgery looks like, well, here it is.
So you can see there, if you're trying to look like one of the X-Men, then this is the procedure for you, I guess, which probably makes it sound cooler than it really is.
In truth, she just looks bizarre, you know, like some kind of AI recreation of herself.
But this is the effect that most cosmetic procedures have on people, and that's a problem because cosmetic surgery, as mentioned a moment ago, has never been more popular.
Long gone are the days when only aging, upper-class, 52-year-old women got work done.
Now, everyone is doing it, especially young people.
Plastic surgery procedures increased by 20% from 2019 until now, according to PlasticSurgery.org.
The same source tells us that the Gen Z crowd accounted for nearly 40% of all nose jobs in the previous year and 25% of all cheek implants.
Because cheek implants are apparently a thing.
Meanwhile, my generation millennials seem to be particular fans of buttock augmentations and have accounted for more than 40% of those.
Perhaps not surprisingly, liposuction is the most popular cosmetic procedure of them all, right ahead of breast implants.
And all of these surgeries are being performed more often, and they're starting at younger ages.
The New York Post again reports, As celebrities scramble for doses of weight loss aid Ozempic, Gen Z is booking cosmetic procedures more now than ever.
In fact, 75% of plastic surgeons saw a spike in clients under 30, according to data released last week by the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Which is a consistently higher plateau over the five previous years.
Borderside Certified Plastic Surgeon Dr. Ashley Amalfi said that she's seen an uptick in young clientele at the Quatala Center for Plastic Surgery in Rochester, New York, and now about one-third of her patients are Gen Z. Quote, I really see that as sort of this extension of the beauty market.
She called the trend great.
They are a population in general who's just taking really good care of themselves.
Now, I'm not sure that taking good care of themselves is the first attribute that I would associate with Gen Z or any other current American generation.
You know, over half of Gen Z are obese, first of all, so it's hard to say that they are particularly adept at self-care.
And they may use the phrase self-care and talk about it a lot, and they make TikTok videos about it, but the results tell us a different story.
And of course, plastic surgery is rarely an example of taking care of yourself.
Now, sure, here and there you might find a person Who had a procedure done and they actually do look better because of it.
I mean, that does happen.
I'm not denying that.
There are people who have deformities or other sorts of visible physical afflictions, burns, that sort of thing, where plastic surgery could truly change their lives for the better.
But those cases are likely in the minority, probably a rather small minority.
And most of these people, especially the 26-year-old women going to the surgeon for cheek implants and Botox and lip fillers and so on, they wind up looking significantly worse by the end of it because They look less human.
Like that woman's eyes.
I don't know what that looks like.
Those are not human eyes.
It doesn't look like a human's eye.
I don't know what that is.
It looks artificial.
And that's the general effect of so many of these procedures.
They make you look less real, less authentic.
And looking less real and less authentic automatically means that you look worse.
Because to look less human is to look worse as a human.
Because as it turns out, you as a human being are a whole, complete creature.
You are not a potato head doll.
You cannot mix and match your parts and reassemble yourself however you choose.
Well, you can do that, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, but everyone will be able to tell that you've done it.
You know, we'll look at your reassembled face and think, hmm, something's a little bit off about that.
It's not quite right.
So you may not like your eyes or your lips or your nose or whatever, but those are your eyes and your lips and your nose.
And if you go and get different eyes, lips, or nose, they're not going to be yours anymore.
Your cheek implants may look like cheeks, but they probably won't look like your cheeks.
It will appear as it is, like parts have been artificially attached to you or artificially inflated to resemble a size and shape they were never meant to be.
It's certainly the case for every lip augmentation that's ever been done.
And that's what makes plastic surgery so uncanny.
You know, the weird thing about it is that, like, if I see you for the first time and I never knew you before, never saw you before, most of the time, I, like anybody else, will still be able to tell if you had work done on your face.
It'll be obvious that those artificial or artificially accentuated features are not your features.
Which is kind of interesting when you think about it because I don't know you.
I've never seen you before.
But I know that how you look right now is not how you really look.
That's because the picture doesn't quite make sense.
The features don't fit together.
It doesn't match.
It's not real.
There's something asymmetrical and inauthentic and out of balance about it.
You don't look how you were made to look.
And even people who don't know how you were made to look can tell.
But of course, people don't believe that they were made these days at all.
That's part of the problem.
The reason cosmetic surgery is as popular as it is, is exactly that.
Many people think that they basically materialized out of the ether for no reason and for no purpose.
And now they are gods over themselves.
They are in charge of their own self-creation.
They set to work, then, rebuilding their own bodies.
And at the end of the whole process, if it ever does end, which often it doesn't, they have become some pale imitation of what they were before.
Some weird Picasso-like rendition of themselves.
Which, like any remake, is only very rarely an improvement over the original.
And that is why the plastic surgery craze Is today cancelled.
