When a woman cheats, odds are she’ll fuck the man with whom she cheats harder, longer, deeper than she has ever fucked her husband or boyfriend.
tclifford adds a relevant quote:
From Anthony Powell’s *A Writer’s Notebook*: “Being unfaithful to a woman gives a man rather tender feelings about her, but a woman usually hates a man when she is being unfaithful to him.”
It’s true because men have a harem mentality and a sexual appetite that can be easily divorced from emotional feelings, while women have a “be part of an alpha male’s harem” mentality and a sexual appetite that cannot be easily divorced from emotional feelings. It’s why a man can cheat on a perfectly loving partner, while a woman often resents and despises the partner who (she rationalizes) pushes her into cheating on him to seek the love she needs.
Bonus UTotD:
“Unwanted sexual advance” is an oxymoron. How’s a man supposed to know he’s sexually unwanted if he doesn’t advance? The advancing is necessary to find out if it’s unwanted. PoundMeToo
Thanks, Globalist Scum, for turning American into a real life human version of Calhoun’s rat dystopia experiments!
***
In heartening news: when young White men are ready to fight, the world will shake.
PS De-urbanization should be a major plank of the Maul-Right. Crass, mass urbanization is intimately tied up with national decline. To save America, we must spin off Americans from the centripetal pull of the urban soymachine.
***
From RedPillofHergest:
Went with friends to a top ranked ski resort in New England for an over-priced (white-priced ?) weekend. At lunch we observed an extended family nearby. The brothers obviously worked out, looked to be late 20s or early 30s, both married to slender, blonde, attractive women. Each had 2 kids. There were 3 boys and girl, aged probably 4-8. One of the dads gave them a $5 and they wriggled past the crowd near the door waiting to be seated, through the packed restaurant, right along the bar, to the door in back that led down the hall to the arcade. A few minutes later we laughed as the little girl, all flowing long hair and batting eyelids asked for more quarters. One woman in our group said, “those boys aren’t dumb! Send the girl to hit him up.” And dad poked back at his daughter with “you guys went through 20 quarters already?!”, hesitating until she leaned in with a “puh-leeeeez?” before coughing up another $5. And off she went alone through the gauntlet of adults, out of sight in an instant. I looked to a 16 year old boy in our group and said, “what do you make of that? Those little kids going off like that and nobody is worried about them?” He replied, “so? I used to do the same thing here,” And then I hit him with, “You know why parents let their kids do it? Because this is a homogenous environment. Everybody operates the same way. If there were any freak that might hurt a kid, he would stand out in this crowd, and people would put a stop to it.” His eyes started scanning the crowd. “Now”, I finished, “imagine if you’re entire country was like that !”
Truth & Beauty are breaching The Fuggernaut’s perimeter defenses. You can tell this is happening because The Fuggernaut has, perhaps hastily, resorted to coordinated censorship of dissidents. The Keepers of the Globohomo Orthodoxy have mowed down innumerable thought criminals on Faceborg, Goolag, Twatter, and Fapple, and now they’re turning their silencing superweapon against Alt-Tech.
By Rabbi Abraham Cooper […]
–The Alt Tech phenomenon is gaining traction. Extremists in the Alt-Right movement reject the rules laid out by social media companies and others to curb online hate. As a result, they increasingly use platforms where there are few if any rules and, when necessary, start their own online funding efforts. Taking their inspiration from far-right gains in Europe, the U.S.-based extremists are recasting neo-Nazism, xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and white supremacism with a new vocabulary (e.g. “It’s OK to Be White,” “Stop White Genocide”). An entire subculture of hate is taking shape online ranging from Pepe the Frog’s icon to gaming apps to t-shirts—all using insiders’ vocabulary.
When your enemy has lost the argument in the arena of ideas, but refuses to cede power or admit defeat, then he will, while power is still in his hands, silence, censor, suppress, slander, gaslight, and blacklist you and anyone remotely associated with you. It’s what psychopathic neurotics do when things don’t go their way and their vision of a Globalist Market Bazaar in every small town is thwarted by the common man. If they can’t beat a foe’s ideas, they’ll beat the foe into submission.
This is where the West is at today, and the potential for the current stand-off to get a lot worse is at least as great as the potential for it to resolve peacefully and to the benefit of Heritage America.
But an uprising is coming. A Z which haunts their Zzzzs. And they know. It’s why they’re desperate to SHUT IT DOWN, while the shutting down’s good.
Over the course of this time, we’ve witnessed a frightening evolution in the sophistication of the tools they use and professionalism by which they go about their work. Today, we’re on the verge of a tipping point.
“tipping point” = “our decades-long curated Lies are about to be exposed”
The post-millennial Generation Z has grown up with a smartphone in its hands and is reaching adulthood with an unprecedented ability to organize, fundraise, and, if so inclined, to create hateful content and distribute it through fragmented, but interconnected media channels.
Translation: Unmonitored free speech is a threat to our democracy.
Here are the principal 2018 takeaways, all tying back to the common theme that we are dealing with more agile and increasingly capable adversaries:
Adversaries = White Gentiles. The mask has slipped so far down the face it’s like one of those comedy skits where the light suddenly goes on while a shadowed anonymous person is being interviewed.
Here is the good news: While far from perfect, most major social media providers, led by Facebook, are removing hate and terror postings.
These types never, ever learn the age-old lesson: they can censor the Truth and ostracize Truespeakers all they want, but the Truth never stays subdued for long. The Truth’s dominion is encompassing and irrepressible. If you strike down ten of us today, a hundred more will rise tomorrow, angrier and more vengeful than the martyrs they followed. Each iteration of censorship by the ruling elite begets a bigger army of the censored.
So we’re at a crossroads, anticipating the beleaguered elite’s next move. It’s in this time, cornered and stuck like pigs, that the elite are most dangerous. Oppress soldiers of the pen now, prepare for soldiers of the sword later. They censor and humiliate us with Fake Support for their nation-crushing agenda, and now they even jail us for speaking impolitely about essential differences between the sexes and races, and for daring to confront the corrupt authority in which so much faith has been lost. They’ve instituted their nuclear option all over the West, hoping to contain the stifled majorities that have experienced at long last the exhilaration of free thought unchained from the Globohomo Narrative.
It’s too late for them. All it takes is the tiniest morsel of mental and psychological freedom to shun the padded cell of soothing globalist boilerplate. There’s no going back, and attempts by the discourse gatekeepers to rewind the clock will fail, miserably, utterly, and, if they push it, spectacularly.
From (of all places) Real Clear Politics, an essay on David Lisak and the lies about campus rape he pushed onto an eagerly believing academia and equally gullible legal system, to the detriment of American men everywhere.
Discredited Sex Assault Research Infects U.S. Legal System […]
The example discussed here began with a small study by an associate professor at a commuter college in Massachusetts. The 12-page paper describing the study barely created a stir when it was published in 2002. Within a few years, however, the paper’s principal author, David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts-Boston psychologist, began making dramatic statements that extrapolated far beyond the study’s conclusions. He created, virtually out of whole cloth, a theory that “undetected” serial rapists are responsible for 90 percent of assaults on college campuses, that they premeditate and plan their attacks, and that they are likely to have committed multiple acts of violence.
When speaking on campuses, to the military, and to law enforcement, Lisak started showing a highly disturbing video that he claimed was based on the transcript of an actual interview with a campus rapist to whom Lisak gave the name “Frank.” The authenticity of the video has been seriously questioned, raising grave doubts about Lisak’s contention that it illustrates the typical campus perpetrator—in his view, an unrepentant sociopath who cannot be reached or educated.A news search for mentions of Lisak finds only a single one prior to 2009, in which he revealingly opined in an urban policy magazine about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax. He was interviewed again by CBS News in November 2009 about non-stranger rapes. He increasingly became the draw at conferences on sexual assault and his calendar filled with campus presentations. The media began to fawn over him […]
As his celebrity grew, the gap between documented facts and his status as an expert became almost inconsequential.
His assertions, allegedly supported by a study he co-authored in 2010, that false accusations of sexual assault are exceedingly rare, have been shown to violate basic math by counting as true cases that didn’t qualify as sexual assault, had insufficient evidence to make a determination, or were referred for prosecution but about which the outcome was unknown.
As for Lisak’s vague statements about having interviewed “hundreds” of serial rapists (occasionally styled as “thousands” when others talk about him), in truth no evidence exists that Lisak has interviewed any “undetected rapists,” serial or otherwise, since his dissertation research 30 years ago.
Feminism, of the femcunt or mangina variety, causes real pain and extracts real tribute from innocent men. It’s essentially blackmail of men, a ransom on normal healthy masculinity. Feministism is a blight on the country and should be taken seriously as a wicked ideology which destroys lives, communities, and whole nations.
Unfortunately, our “elites” and our institutions in which we have placed our trust lap up the lies of feminism and beg for more of that man-hating vitriol:
Yet all of these devastating exposés have barely dented Lisak’s popularity. […]
Were the damage wrought by David Lisak’s popularity confined to his college-circuit road show, there might be some hope that his toxic influence would be worn down by the critical thinking ostensibly prized by the academy.
Instead, that has not happened. The list of invited presentations, workshops, and media appearances in which he has hawked his unsubstantiated theories runs an additional 40 pages on his curriculum vitae. Among the most worrisome aspects of Lisak’s presentations and workshops is how they appear to be gaining influence among professionals close to the investigation and adjudication of sexual assault. His debunked serial predator theory and wildly extrapolated statistics on the false-accusation rate form the core of the training materials he has developed—and in some cases sold to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and the military.
Read on, it gets worse. The System is utterly and totally rigged against men.
Most troubling of all, Lisak’s material is being codified in law enforcement policies, legal precedents, and judicial guidelines at the local, state, and federal levels.
The Sexual Offense Bench Guide for judges in the state of Washington, for example, draws liberally from Lisak’s 2008 publication “Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence.” His claims have been similarly incorporated into New Mexico’s Sexual Assault Bench Book, the Tribal Court Judges Bench Book on sexual assault, the Missoula County Attorney’s Office Policy and Procedure Manual, the Pennsylvania Crimes of Sexual Violence Benchbook, New York State’s Judicial Symposium, Wisconsin’s Prosecutor’s Sexual Assault Reference Book, and the Judge Advocate General Corps Criminal Law Desk Book.
The relationship between prosecutors, judges and the juries who will ultimately arrive at verdicts in criminal trials is further tainted by recommendations that prosecutors and judges incorporate into the jury selection process: namely, Lisak’s claim that false accusations are rare and his unsupported theory about serial offenses.
JAG guidelines for prosecutors, for example, advise that “myths” about the frequency of false reports be challenged “directly, in voir dire and in argument.” Prospective jurors whose information does not align with the (inaccurate) information provided in guidelines influenced by Lisak could then be dismissed and/or a seated jury could be told of the supposedly “true” facts.
Ignoramous snarkmouths mock anti-feminism as “male whining”, but flesh and blood innocent men are being chewed up and their livelihoods destroyed by this lying spiteful institutionalized femcuntery that has polluted our legal system:
A judge in Montana, for example, denied a request to have a case dismissed on the grounds of a Missoula police department requiring officers to presume the guilt of the accused when investigating sexual assault. The judge stated that she based her ruling on Lisak’s (baseless, and thus misleading) testimony about the low rate of false reports. When such decisions are made, when presumptions of guilt are part of the training of judges and prosecutors, or reflected in jury instructions, innocent defendants are put in harm’s way.
No institution is immune from the feminist gelding project. The media are bullhorns for every crackpot man-hating feminist or mangina claim that lands in their Faceborg feeds:
Even those ostensibly in the business of impartial news coverage have been tainted by their own guidelines, as when the media have been fed the same misinformation, masquerading as insight. Their contribution to the problem is further amplified when they are further advised not to use the phrase “rape allegation” because “allegation is not a neutral term and strongly implies doubt,” and they fail to see that the alternative suggested—“reported rape”—implies an act that has, indeed, happened, distinguished only by the fact that it is on record.
The authors of this piece ask:
Where does that leave those for whom accuracy, integrity, and truth matter?
Crushed underneath the jackboot of the Anti-White Male Narrative enforcers.
This is not an easy assignment, but the use of good lawyering to dismantle bad “research” can be powerful, and good courtroom theater as well. When faced with a Lisakian claim that “only 6 percent of rape allegations are false,” the defense attorney can ask what percent, then, are true? David Lisak himself would have great trouble answering that question without being exposed as a statistical manipulator, because his writings have never even addressed it. Rather, he has used misleading language to imply that almost all rape accusations have been proven true. Indeed, a good defense lawyer could fairly ask: “Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Lisak, that the number of rape accusations that have been proven false may well be larger than the number that have been proven true?”
Reminder that false rape accusations may be as high as 40-50% of total rape cases.
Women lie. Women especially lie about matters concerning sex. Shitlibs and tradcons need to deal with this fact of womanhood, and stop pretending belief in the Princess Proposition.
Lisak’s claims are wrong and the experts who tout them are vulnerable when asked direct questions. The discrediting of Lisak must become part of the court record, in case after case, before the far more difficult task of correcting the effects of his bogus claims on criminal justice policies can be accomplished.
The Truth won’t be denied forever. It will out, one way or another. And helping the Truth out will be the re-introduction of lots of Based White Gentile Men into the legal profession. More White Gentile shitlord lawyers will put these laywercunts and their greasy society-subverting (((accomplices))) under the microscope, their biases and agenda revealed for the world to mock, their malfeasance exposed, and themselves along with their standing army of Fake Social Scientists punished with extreme prejudice.
The focus here has been on one particular—and particularly problematic—conveyer of misinformation. David Lisak’s high profile and willingness to depart from even his own published papers in service of an agenda makes him the embodiment of the attack on due process. But Lisak is not alone. He has recently been joined by other “experts” straying even further afield from verifiable data and often in direct contradiction of known science.
The Fuggeraut feels no guilt. The Hate Machine feels no empathy. Fuggernaut and the Hate Machine will only stop when they are stopped by a more powerful force wielding a more powerful weapon: The truth.
The difficulty of fighting the toxic distribution of misrepresentation and statistical sleight-of-hand is partially a function of high-profile purveyors and enablers.
sand-sophists
The codification of myths in law enforcement procedures; in the training of prosecutors and judges; and in policy at the town, county, state, and federal levels all but guarantees insidious and continuous regeneration.
There is a great deal of ruin in a nation, and there is a great deal of effort required to repair a ruined nation.
The roadmap such myths provide is wrong but concrete, offering up sociopathic villains in place of a continuum of offenders, permission to presume guilt in the absence of evidence, and a philosophy that accusers not only don’t lie but are never mistaken.
A lot of this man-hating false rape fabulism witch hunting is motivated by an ego-preserving shitlib urge to avoid confronting the elephant in the room: the massively disproportionate rate of black-on-white rape. The Lying Lisaks of the world give white feminists and their mangina lickspittles an excuse to avert their eyes and level their redirected rage against the object of their desire and envy: White Gentile Men.
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:
Manjaw.
Manhips.
Manwaist.
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.
I don’t thank my grassroots donors often enough. Like the NRA, and unlike just about every left-wing nonprofit advocacy group, this humble Chateau has lots of individual small donors standing up to the Globohomo behemoth.
So thank you, generous readers, those who have given a lot or a little. (Even you, that one guy who donated $0.69. I see what you did there.) It is appreciated.
Reminder that donations are always welcome, year round, big or small or epically yuge. The donate button is at the right side of the home page of this blog, just under the “where pretty lies perish” part of the banner. Direct link.
As a show of gratitude, there are two large Reader Mailbags scheduled for publication soon, chock full of answers to your pressing pickup and relationship questions. The core mission of this blog is, and has always been, to help men understand, navigate, and succeed in the modren sexual market, and to find and manage their role in a chaotically shifting cultural landscape. Topics can veer wildly here, but the core mission is never forgotten.
***
Screenshotted, and on bucket kick watch stand-by, ready to deploy an army of happy dancing Snoopys for the glorious occasion.
***
Reminder that the Chateau is a glowing, warm light guiding lost travelers to its doors and holding the encroaching darkness at bay. This encroaching darkness:
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.
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.
