TRUMPERICA!

No hoverhand.

My brah-love for this man expands like a supernova.

Trump has the charisma to unite the PUA-ReadSiege-le56%er-MPC factions of the Maul-Right.

It’s a new day for American Dreamers (previously known as American Deplorables).

ps choke on it, hillary!

Physiognomy Is Real (Wealth)

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.

Your Daily Game: Girls Playing Gotcha

Theodore asks,

Game question: What is the best way to respond when a girl asks if she annoys you?

As you probably surmised, this question is a trap. If you answer yes, she “got to you” and you sound a little butthurt. If you answer no, and she really is annoying, you look weak for appeasing her. A teasing evasion is the way to go. I’d answer, “now you do”, or “when you ask questions like that, you do”. One of my favorite go-to lines for taunting girlquestions like this one is, “You wish”. It totally deflates a smarmy beyotch and re-establishes yourself as the dominant banter force.

The other countermove is Agree&Amplify. “Yes, you are the most annoying girl I have ever met. Each second with you is like waterboarding torture. I’m gonna call you Gitmo.” Obviously if you’re saying this with a wry smile and over-the-top eye rolls, she’ll laugh and come back down to earth to meet you human-to-human instead of shit testing theatrical drama queen-to-human.

The Gotcha! Girl trips up many a beta male with her deviously probing questions. The best frame of mind to have for skirting this trap is to dodge her rhetorical charge and make it about her and her insecurities instead of about you qualifying yourself to her. The thrust (heh) of a man’s seduction should always be away from qualifying himself and towards qualifying the girl.

Game Advice For The Masochistic Man

Ted Colt asks for some Game advice to give his son,

other than fleeing, what advice would you give my son?

He’s referring to this scenario:

If a chick sincerely and weirdly said that to your son, and she was cute enough to consider angling for the bangling? He should ask if that pickup line has ever worked for her.

A fledgling womanizer up for the challenge of seducing femcunts-in-training will never go wrong macking these girls using the one-two combo of “assume the sale” and “flip the script” game techniques. Assume she’s trying to pick you up, and flip the female chasee-male chaser script. All delivered with a tacitly, pregnantly jerkboy je ne sais cock.

These kinds of girls — the screechy parroters of feminist drivel — were never very common, but their numbers have been increasing since The Insanity took over America, so there’s a chance your son may come across a girl saying something like this to him, in which case my line above should help him pass her shit test with flying colors and wipe the early onset schoolmarm sneer off her face.

Why I Love President Trump

This video of an extemporaneous Trump telling it like it is about hot female teachers boffing their male students explains better than a thousand-word essay could why I, along with tens of millions of Americans, hold a deep and profound nohomo love for the man.

pic.twitter.com/2YN66LpmsJ

— Mel Gibson fan 3 (@MelGibsonFan3) February 28, 2018

I didn’t think it possible I could love this man more than I already do.

Everything about this video clip is high T goodness. Trump’s facial expressions, his cool under the pressure of a left-field question, the way he looks at the camera and only briefly visually acknowledges the sexy reporter, and of course his answers.

“male students haven’t been hurt by [sex with their teachers]” Politihack rating: 100% TRUE

“they’re going around bragging about it” Politihack rating: 100% TRUE

“i don’t see a lot of damage done” Politihack rating for both the stated and implied assertions: 100% TRUE. Teen boys are psychosexually different than teen girls. A right good fuck with a hot teacher isn’t gonna leave lasting emotional scars on a horny young man.

“i would say her husband cannot be happy” Politihack rating: 100% TRUMP

The great irony of our Fake News Agitprop Age is that Trump speaks more raw honest truth in a day than the Left and their cucktrolled opposition have spoken in the last sixty years.

And that’s the TRUTH that burns Trump’s enemies, and why they are sinking in a morass of their own psychological projection.

***

PS Here’s an insight worth reading about Trump’s WINNING strategy:

Black Pillers, chill out. Trump knows what he’s doing. He’s a master at out-maneuvering and mindfucking the media (and by the associative property, the Democrat Party).

It’s why I don’t take everything Trump says at face value. I take him seriously, but not literally. He says — in front of cackling hand-rubbing Feinstein — that he wants to ban guns? That’s the deception. He lies to his enemies — to America’s enemies — and that’s a good thing, because the Left plays for keeps. And Trump is the warrior we need to crush the Left.

Rare Footage Of Young Heartiste!

da GBFM dug up an archived gem: rare footage of a stripling CH caught cheating on one of his crisis actress plates! She tries to get back at him by burning the jailbait coal, but her revenge plot is foiled when it’s obvious her wee p1ckaninny prefers….different company. File under: Post-America.

David Hogg is jealous of this girl’s acting ability.

Leftoid Cognitive Biases: Negative Transference And Psychological Projection

Two common cognitive biases, negative transference and psychological projection, are evident in most people but especially common in those of the leftoid persuasion. There are also racial differences in vulnerability to each of these ego-assuaging biases, manifesting typically in lower performing and worse-behaving groups who use these coping mechanisms to alleviate or accommodate their feelings of resentment and envy.

Negative transference is a subset of psychological projection. A quick definition:

Transference is having feelings that seem to be about one person when they’re really about someone else. For example, I sometimes think my therapist doesn’t want to listen to me. Really it was my mother who didn’t listen, and I’ve transferred those feelings onto my therapist.

Projection is where you think someone else is feeling or behaving in a particular way when actually they’re your feelings or behaviour. I find it hard to feel sad or angry about things I tell my therapist, but I imagine him feeling sad or angry – I project my feelings onto him. And sometimes people accuse others of doing things they are in fact doing themselves.

So transference is about the cause of the feelings, and projection is about who you think is feeling them. Does that help? So your therapist would tell by looking at a) the cause of the feelings and b) where you think they’re coming from.

If you experience your therapist as being distant when really a parent was distant, that’s transference.

If you experience your therapist as being distant when really you’re being distant, that’s projection.

Negative transference is similar to scapegoating and blame shifting. Basically, person [A] transfers negative feelings he has for person or group [A2] to an innocent third party [B] when person [A] has an affinity for or emotional connection to person or group [A2] and balks at blaming [A2] for his bad feelings.

Psychological projection is when person [A] accuses innocent person or group [B] of poor behavior that person [A] is doing himself, or which person [A]’s associated group [A2] is doing. Projection is also a form of blame shifting.

These two powerful cognitive biases are ego emollients because they shift blame away from a person, or away from a group with whom the person positively identifies, to a resented third party person or group.

Which brings me to this observation:

Just like “White racism” is negative transference by blacks who can’t admit it’s black dysfunction and criminal violence that bedevils them, “the patriarchy” is negative transference by women who can’t admit it’s female cattiness, gossip, innuendo, emotional manipulation, and envy of other women’s beauty that bedevils them.

In both cases, blacks and women (particularly feminists) also psychologically project their own bad behavior onto resented outgroups (Whites and men, respectively). So they are covering for themselves as well as for the groups to which they belong.

Negative transference and psychological projection explain A LOT of the current hysterics we see from the BLM crowd, the pussyhat bluehairs, and the…..well, you know who.