Archive for the ‘Physiognomy Is Real’ Category

The American Library Association has been overrun by gloryholing nümales, rug munchers, and pussyhatters. (see slideshow)

ljl at that banal intersectionalist poopytalk at the bottom.

If Ben Franklin could have seen what would become of the American Library institution, he would have stayed in Paris, enjoying ze poolside.

The American Library Association is now staffed and overseen by submissive beta bitchboys, aggrocunt feminists, and ex-DMV employees, all of them intent on achieving final victory over the hated (and self-hated) White Man: corruption of his institutions, erasure of his history, and replacement by his lessers.

When weak men and abrasive women have captured the institutions, decay, desecration, and destruction of those institutions isn’t far behind.

Related: There is evidence (thank you, ¡SCIENCE!) that big goofy smiles — aka gloryhole faces — are associated with lower dominance and lower prestige.

Across four studies, the current paper demonstrates that smiles are associated with lower social status. Moreover, the association between smiles and lower status appears in the psychology of observers and generalizes across two forms of status: prestige and dominance. In the first study, faces of fashion models representing less prestigious apparel brands were found to be more similar to a canonical smile display than the faces of models representing more prestigious apparel brands. In a second study, after being experimentally primed with either high or low prestige fashion narratives, participants in the low prestige condition were more likely to perceive smiles in a series of photographs depicting smiling and non-smiling faces. A third study of football player photographs revealed that the faces of less dominant (smaller) football players were more similar to the canonical smile display than the faces of their physically larger counterparts. Using the same football player photographs, a fourth study found that smiling was a more reliable indicator of perceived status-relevant personality traits than perceptions of the football players’ physical sizes inferred from the photographs.

Another nugget of Chateau wisdom lovingly polished by the labcoats.

  • Betas smile too little and smile too much

Yeah, it seems contradictory, but betas never have a firm grasp on when and how often it’s personally advantageous to smile. They don’t smile when they walk into the bar or before they’ve started talking to a girl, and they smile too much once they are in a conversation with a girl. This behavior reveals their tormented beta soul: They are unhappy to be there until a girl’s presence makes them happy. Would an alpha relinquish his state of mind to another person? Especially a woman? No. His joy is self-generated.

When you go out to FMAC girls, try this face for best results:

In the big picture analysis, the efflorescence of gawping soyboys indicates a bifurcating sexual market featuring the cad haves and the incel have-nots. The open-mouthed betas are advertising their submission to the new paradigm whenever they get the chance, hoping an alpha will toss them one of his sloppy fifths and the manjawed shrikes who work with them won’t accuse them of a #MeToo infraction. This period of Western history, particularly in America, is notable for the appeasing prostration of its mass of beta males. The pendulum will eventually swing back to confident beta males in charge of the culture, and when it does it will swing with a vengeance, because we’ve gone much further down the road of anti-beta male degeneracy.

Also related: Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right website was de-registered by GoDaddy at the request of a butthurt black woman “civil rights” lolyer. Hey, how about that! Diversity isn’t so great for free speech! Corporations that cave like this to shrieking anti-White mobs ought to be de-registered from earth.

Read Full Post »

Top: Insol

Bottom two: Incel

All three: Narcisshits groomed on a steady diet of social media Likes.

Explains a lot.

Nasim Aghdam looks like the love child of David Hogg and Eliot Roger. Really wide face indicates psychopathic tendencies. And of course she’s a racial mutt from that part of the world that produces a disproportionate number of the world’s psychos.

Verdict: she, and her family, should never have been let into America. They aren’t like us.


I confess when I heard Oytube got shot up by this unibrow minx, I didn’t shed a tear. Globohomo Valley tech monopolies on the receiving end of their vibrant pets’ rage? Umm, sorry? I forgot to mourn.

If an emboldened horde of steppe-nomad mystery meat vegan psychocunts decides to visit hell on the centers of Leftoid Power, there isn’t a bucket of popcorn big enough to enjoy the fratricidal freakshow.


A reader writes,

The YT killer story has various levels/angles, but I think the most interesting one is the wish for revenge against a company that has taken on the task of arbitrarily censoring the content of videos posted on its system, often undermining people’s businesses in doing so. A proportion harmed by it will follow in this woman’s footsteps.

Reminder that this is the grotesquerie, deformed by inbreeding whose ancestors sacrificed a human visage and relatability for a few shekels of IQ, who controls what you see and hear on her worldwide communications medium:


It’s Revenge of the Nerds, times one million and more repulsive than any Lovecraftian horror. It’s Fuggernaut politics. The degenerate freak mafia only knows how to destroy the true and beautiful so that they no longer feel the sting of their lies and ugliness.

The Fuggernaut doesn’t want us gazing to the heavens; they want us staring at the muck.


My sides! From MPC status updates:

The internet really is an incredible mental illness incubator.

Petition to replace “marry, fuck, kill” with “italian, persian, or jew?”

Chad Bigly:

Me: The perfect Narrative Collapse doesn’t exist.

Nasim Aghdam: Hold my vegan kebab.

LOL. What’s wrong with our angry young women? Has feminist veganism gone too far?

One more flog of the Hogg:

It’s funny cause it’s cruel. (For those who don’t know, Hogg tweeted about his virginity and no-girlfriend lifestyle, confessing that his classmates think he’s weird. Who could’ve guessed that?)

Read Full Post »

I can’t believe this hasn’t been done before. A criminally curious researcher averaged the faces of normies and compared the composites with an average of the faces of those possessing the Dark Triad personality traits (a suite that includes psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) and discovered that jerkiognomy is real.

From the paper’s abstract:

Is facial structure a valid cue of the dark triad of personality (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy)? I obtained self-reports and peer reports of personality as well as expression-neutral photographs of targets, and then I created prototypes of people high and low on each of the three dimensions by digitally combining select photographs of Caucasian targets. The results indicated that unacquainted observers reliably detected the dark triad composite, especially in female prototypes. Thus, not only is the dark triad a set of psycho-social characteristics—it may also be a set of physical–morphological characteristics. In the Discussion, I introduce a website that stores these personality prototypes and many others (http://www.nickholtzman.com/faceaurus.htm).

The evidence is piling up that we really can judge a book by its cover. Fat chicks are bitter. Manjaws are cunts. The gayfaced are narcissists. Waifs are emotionally manipulative. Wide-faced men are aggressive. Dindus are [laundry list of dysfunctional behaviors]. (Although even within the world of dinduognomy, there are less sociopathic and more sociopathic individuals.)

The face is a window to the soul. Character is countenance.

Lest we get ahead of ourselves, this study had a very small sample size. There’s more research to be done to see if this replicates with a much larger subject pool, and if it correlates across race. But it provides a chilling hint at the nature of our humanity — it’s more mechanical than transcendent.

My thoughts on the commonalities of the DT and non-DT composites (DT = Dark Triad):

Overall, the DT women look more attractive than the non-DT women. The attractiveness differential isn’t huge, though, so if you don’t want a bunny boiler you needn’t have to settle for a plain jane. However, the difference is big enough to ungenerously conclude that pretty women are all manipulative, attention whoring psychocunts.

The attractiveness differentials for the men are more of a mixed bag. The male narcissist looks more masculine (heavier jawline and brow, thinner lips, smaller eyes) than his humble counterpart, but the masculinity differences are much less obvious between the psychopath and machiavellian composites. If anything, the psychopath male looks more feminine than his trustworthy counterpart. The machiavellian male is your classic “pretty boy” but I wouldn’t say he is more masculine looking than his counterpart.

This is important for Game aficionados and students of the crimson arts, because men with the Dark Triad personality traits do better with women, so their success is not necessarily a function of associated masculine physical attractiveness.

(One wag in that Twatter thread noted that the narcissist male looked arabic…and that the DT women looked “more White”.)

Interestingly, the non-DT women and the DT men appear to share facial structures. As someone noted, the DT women have slimmer (and longer) faces and juttier chins. Which is close to the mirror image of the men; the non-DT men have the slimmer and longer faces and the DT men are wider-faced.

All the DT men look meaner than the non-DT men. All the DT women look sexier and sluttier than the non-DT women (ie they are ready and eager to fuck…with your head).

Mm hmm, makes sense. DT men succeed by dominating the social space or others’ perceptions of them, rather than cooperating within the social space or allowing others to form their perceptions unimpeded. DT women succeed by exploiting their sexuality to get men to do their bidding, rather than meet men halfway in mutual adoration to build a long-lasting relationship. All this is apparent in the shape of the face, which acts as a palimpsest of one’s innate character.

The physical facial differences are greater between the DT and non-DT women than they are between the DT and non-DT men. Why? I don’t know, but it aligns with my observations and romantic experiences with waifish, lithesome cuties batting big eyes and resting their dainty heads in their delicate hands as they attempt, usually unsuccessfully, to mindfuck yours truly into surrendering frame and losing state control. (I may or may not be a DT kinda guy, but I learned early on how to spot them and flip the predator-prey script.)

DT women are femmes fatales. Particularly, the femme fatale known as the Eternal Ingenue. So cute and sexy….and so likely to rob you blind in divorce court, spend the winnings on her live-in methhead boyfriend, and wind up on a list of hot female teachers who have been caught banging their students.


Read Full Post »

A gross skank brags about cheating on every man she’s been with, and pretends it’s her preferred career path. It’s a classic case of sweet lemons rationalization (the inverse of sour grapes rationalization). She can’t get a quality man to commit to her, so she lovelessly fucks around with losers or fly by night cads who have no problem pumping and dumping a sloppy slut for a no muss no fuss easy lay, and then claims it’s the perfect lifestyle for her and anyone who will listen. Those LSMV lemons are really sweet! she swears through jizz-stained tears.

When I talk about my future with my friends, it always includes marriage and children. But I’ve also cheated on every person I’ve ever been with.

No man worth marrying is gonna wife up and have kids with a slattern. What man could trust such a bargain bin cum receptacle? Why would any man with something on the ball give a Proud Slut and an incorrigible cheater the blessing of birthing his champions? He’ll always wonder if the kids are his. The lowest of loser males might consider it, but that’s because they have no other options except incel, and the skank will be reminded daily of her low value as a woman by loserboy’s presence in her life.

People don’t refrain from cheating because they’re happy with their partners, they refrain from cheating because they’re afraid of being caught.

That’s not the whole story. Fear of being caught rarely stops a cheater from turning thought into action. The primary reasons monogamous people don’t cheat are because 1. they can’t (un-tradeable undesirability) and 2. they actually love their lover. Oh, and guilt. Most people feel guilt about cheating on their lovers or spouses. People who putatively don’t feel guilt, like Gross Skank, are sociopaths missing a part of their humanity.

Fear of being caught factors prominently into the decision for older married men who have money and holdings they could lose in divorce court, or for stay-at-home moms married to alpha males who aren’t apt to “forgive and support” a wife caught cheating.

But Gross Skank has never been in love (sad!) so it’s easy for her to cheat on the street curs sniffing around her putrid pussy, and then act as if spreading her diseased jizz trap for these hard-up losers (how much you wanna bet most aren’t white?) is some sort of achievement, (it’s not an achievement for women….getting a man with options to stick around, now that’s an achievement).

It’s easier to get away with than you think

Only if the males she fucks are beta noobs who have little experience with women and can’t identify the warning signs of a slut. Or they don’t give a shit about her character.

If you’re worried about them seeing you on Tinder, don’t be. Ask them why they were on it in the first place.

That non sequitur won’t allay their suspicions.

And if a friend sees you? Say your account is old.

She must have very gullible friends if they believe her unconvincing bullshit.

There’s no easier way to get bored of someone than by dating them.

And nobody wants to date someone who doesn’t have their own life. Seriously dating someone is similar to moving in — you can’t just un-move in with someone you’re seeing. You’re either going to spend the rest of your lives together, or you’re going to split. Those are literally the only two options. With decades of time ahead of you, why rush into pushing other people out?

I hope (and assume) you know this by now, but guys want whoever is least interested in them. Once you’re dating, it’s impossible to keep playing hard to get unless you actively work towards making yourself unavailable.

Psychological projection — thinking that others feel the same way one feels — is everywhere in this age of bruised, fragile egos. And women are particularly prone to this cognitive bias, because as a rule women are more solipsistic than are men. When a woman is rejected by a man — rejection for a woman is romantic, not sexual — she is brutally soul-seared by the experience; to protect her ego from imploding to a hamster singularity, she rationalizes the rejection as her failure to be insufficiently man-like, rather than insufficiently woman-like which would be a much harsher indictment on her worth as a woman.

Men don’t want whoever is least interested in them. Men want beautiful women who are attentive, feminine, and loving toward them. Women, otoh, *do* desire challenging men who give ambiguous signals of interest for them and who “have their own life”. A herpes incubator like Gross Skank who can’t get what she wants from high value men — marriage and kids — subverts the reality of differing male and female desires to avoid confronting the obvious cause of her woes: her revolt against ideal femininity.

Not all girls think men are attracted to the same traits that they are attracted to, but most do. And slutty low value girls are the worst afflicted by this psychological deflector shield. The slut who thinks men want what she wants can justify to herself why men don’t stick around after porking her without harming her self-conception as a desirable woman.

In the end, you’re going to date a lot of people and you’re going to marry almost none of them.

Almost? Sluttery is the triumph of self-delusion over experience.

But how many of your friends and interests are you going to shelve while placing them first, only to realize you’re boring and impossible to date afterwards? You have nothing of your own because everything you had was shared.

Telling. She defines herself by the number of cocks she hoovers. And if she isn’t hoovering random cocks and cheating on “boyfriends”, she’s “boring”. This is a woman so empty inside she needs gallons of cum to spackle a veneer on her paint-stripped soul.

Someone should remind her that most emotionally healthy women manage to have their own personalities while being faithfully committed to a man.

Guys don’t want you to sleep with other people because it’s the only thing they have that we don’t.

That’s not it. Men don’t want their gfs or wives to sleep with other men because it’s disgusting and she could get knocked up, cuckolding him.

And once you rise above that, they realize they’ve lost their grip on that leash they thought was so tight.

So very revealing. This is unfiltered man-spite. She’s trying to lash out at men because she’s been burned so many times by them in her quest to find the love that has eluded her for her whole life.

I didn’t love any of the people I cheated with, and I never went on to date them in the future.

The palimpsestic lament of the unloveable lovelorn.

But ultimately, they taught me more about myself than any of the guys I called my boyfriend.

Obviously, these “boyfriends” were nothing of the sort, and her naming designation was an exercise in ego assuaging conceit to avoid calling them what they really were: dildo-shaped opioids.

And as far as the “boyfriends” are concerned, they’ve all slid into my DMs since. Checkmate.

I put “boyfriends” in sneer quotes above to highlight Gross Skank’s essential dishonesty, but here she is one line later putting “boyfriends” in sneer quotes herself, so if she comes by here to wake up on the table and witness her own vivisection she should find herself in complete agreement with what I wrote about her. Checkmate.

Executive summary: Butthurt Caroline Phinney pens the Fake Braggahocio of a lonely hearts club cunt.


A reader writes: “the whole article reads like a foolish attempt to project the image that she’s super in demand, which she’s obviously not if you look at her nose. Literally ruined any hope of marriage.”

Yeah, it’s all another version of LOOKATME by a road-worn disposable cumdump. I’m sure all the “boyfriends” she cheated on have shed copious cockodile tears over losing such a prize.

As with all matters issuing from the Degenerate Freak Mafia, their underlying motivation is revealed with a quick glance at their physical form.

Here’s Gross Skank at her absolute best, caked with makeup and saturation lighting:

And here she is the morning after (which explains why her pumpings are always followed by dumpings):

Yeesh. This is all publicly accessible, readers. She wants the world to see this, so who am I to deny her the audience she craves?

Finally, the full body physiognomy:


Physiognomy — or more generally, anthroposcopy — is realer than ever.

High T, Low E boy-shaped hole fucknchuck aggrocunt sex piston slurping wine slag from the bottle wants you to know she cheats on every man she’s been with and will continue to do so, men really like it despite not a one of them sticking around to show their appreciation, and by the way she dreams of marriage and kids one day, a dream which eludes her, but that’s totally unrelated to her decision to shill for skank glorification.

PS Related: Research shows American women are becoming less feminine since the 1970s.

Read Full Post »

Physiognomy is roaring back as a legitimate field of research. Will phrenology soon follow a similar path to realtalk respectability?

We CAN judge a book by its cover. We can tell with a quick glance at a person’s face who is prone to criminality, who is stupid or smart, who is a cad or a slut, and who is rich or poor.

A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology posits there’s a good chance you can tell if someone is rich or poor just by looking at them.

“The relationship between well-being and social class has been demonstrated by previous research,” R. Thora Bjornsdottir, a graduate student at the University of Toronto and co-author of the study, tells CNBC Make It. In general, people with money tend to live happier, less anxious lives compared to those struggling to make ends meet. She and her team demonstrated “that these well-being differences are actually reflected in people’s faces.”

Bjornsdottir and her co-author, psychology professor Nicholas O. Rule, had undergraduate subjects of various ethnicities look at gray-scale photographs of 80 white males and 80 white females. None showed any tattoos or piercings. Half of the photos were of people who made over $150,000 a year, which they designated as upper class, and the other half were people who made under $35,000, or working class.

When the subjects were asked to guess the class of the people in the photos, they did so correctly 68 percent of the time, significantly higher than random chance.

Surprisingly, researchers co-discovered people can tell which Whites live around blacks; they never look relaxed.

The effect is “likely due to emotion patterns becoming etched into their faces over time,” says Bjornsdottir. The chronic contraction of certain muscles can actually lead to changes in the structure of your face that others can pick up on, even if they aren’t aware of it. […]

“Over time, your face comes to permanently reflect and reveal your experiences,” Rule told the University of Toronto. “Even when we think we’re not expressing something, relics of those emotions are still there.”

We age into the face we deserve — a fairly conventional bit of wisdom that has a big kernel of scientific validity. Related, it’s the reason why successful womanizers have that “unperturbed and in charge look” which seems to exert a preternatural pull on women, and why incels aging into bottled up, scrunched up, constipated faces push women away, regardless of baseline facial attractiveness. A satiated cad walks into a roomful of Betties pre-radiating a glow of unflappable confidence and libidinal fulfillment, and it’s all the women can do to control their curiosity. I.e., the hungry dog is the last to get fed.

CNBC, like most leftoid outfits, chooses to interpret the findings of this Narrative-exploding research with a rhetorical dissembling that would spare their blank slate-committed egos.

“That’s a reminder that snap judgments can have real consequences, and contribute to the cycle of poverty” — CNBC, dribbling typical shitlib boilerplate.

Realtruth: “That’s a reminder that snap judgments are based on concrete biological cues of human worth, and can contribute to efficiently filtering people for purposes of association.”

Physiognomy doesn’t create poor people, shitlibs. Physiognomy notices who is likely to have the inherent characteristics that predispose to poverty.

It’s that NOTICING which really bugs shitlibs. They hate that a reality exists that constantly makes mockery of their antiquated religious orthodoxy.

Read Full Post »

There’s that nümale gloryhole face again, agape and waiting eagerly for the buckcock to jam the back of his throat. It’s the contorted grimace of fear and submission, and why not? The sweet chai breakfast boi with his soylent grin is the emasculated, aromatase product of a globohomo world order which prefers its consumerist cogs in a state of asexual surrender.

This buttplug generation can’t pass from the scene soon enough.

Related: The national emasculation is evident wherever you look. The latest trend is the “soyboy sit“, or the “soy sit”. Also called “cuck leg”.

The demasculinization of young men is a phenomenon that is pressured by a variety of outlets, namely feminist movements and college campuses. Since the ’80s, which famously marked the decline of the alpha male, the public idealization of masculinity has declined as far as traditionalism is concerned. Consider the icons of past decades (e.g. Clint EastwoodRobert ConradBurt Reynolds) with media stars today (Robert PattinsonHarry StylesJustin Bieber). There is something about a “feminine” man that succeeds in the current social paradigm.

“Succeeds”, only if loosely defined to mean “gets airtime on house organs and has to molest manjawed coworkers to get any action”.

Feminine men can only succeed in small numbers, by exploiting tiny sexual market niches as sneaky fuckers stealing women who’ve been emotionally abandoned by their chad lovers. But a society full of these feminine men, as we have now, is destined to fail, and fail spectacularly. The sexual polarity will return with a force. The natural order will resume. The God of Biomechanics doesn’t slumber for long.

Read Full Post »

Very sneaky of this tub of soy to use the category “middle eastern refugees” rather than the more precise and relevant “moslem”, which includes all moslems residing in America rather than just those officially designated as refugees recently escaping a war zone. The latter category — “moslem” — has a terrorist attack rate in America 5,000% higher than the rate for non-moslems.

And the vapid conflation of terrorist attacks with falling down stairs is par for the shitlib course. Stairs don’t surprise us with pipe bombs in the subway. We all know where the stairs are and the risks inherent in climbing or descending them. But the goal of moslem terrorists goes beyond their kill count; their objective is to spread fear and panic that death could come at any time and in any place. And, unlike stairs, moslems kill in the name of a religion, and have deep and wide networks of fellow moslems helping them in their deranged cause. They have an agenda, which stairs do not.

Finally, one has to scoff at the asterisked fine print on this bugman’s posterboard. He went out of his way to assure viewers he has “citations” for his claims.

But who will fact check the fact checkers?

(anyone with descended testicles)

Anyhow, that PURE CUCKFACE is a lesson in physiognomy. A quick glance at his problem glasses and his smug doughy androgynous puffboy mug is all you need to know he’d be the type to WELL ACHSHUALLY about moslem terrorism and welcome an invasion of hued hordes….into somebody else’s neighborhood. It’s also the look of a pasty blob who just hit the button on his rectally-inserted orgasm egg.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: