Physical Aspect

Voivode Momčilo Đujić - WW2 Chetnik warlord from Western Bosnia and Croatia. In his youth he looked like if DiCaprio playing the role of Anton LaVey - ironically enough, he was an Orthodox priest. You can see in his face a certain severity - one can guess that his sermons would be much more "Old Testament." A man who Does What Needs to Be Done. And during the war, he was in the curious situation to be technically on the side of the Allies, but collaborating with the Italians, against Croatia, their own ally. During the war, you can see that he changed, his eyes show a certain clarity, and it might just be the beard, but he looks more priestly than in his youth. Also note on the left picture some very slight Asiatic traits, which are common in the region, for whatever reason (Avar genes?). If born later, he would be running a cult.

Back to the "fat men looked better in the past:"


Milan Nedić. Governor of occupied Serbia. Decorated WW1 veteran and at the time considered a war hero - which is why he was picked by the Germans to be the public face of the occupied government - as nobody actually wanted the job - not even Nedić. You can see immediately that this is a very serious, no-nonsense man that you do not want to make an enemy. Someone who also Does What Needs to Be Done, but even more extreme, someone who would, when shown the Trolley problem image, ask what each person does, to determine which route would generate the least loss, and not regret it. Someone who would go into the military no matter which time period.

I'm so happy this absurd conversation happened for so many reasons. Such absurd characters for such opposed reasons encountering each other while we all get to observe.

Look at Ross, the neanderthal on the left. He's not convinced that "AI" is particularly dangerous or about to do anything insane. Some people think he has a wrong look to him, I'm a fan. Very pleasing physical aspect. He looks to me exactly how he should. Kind of simple, earnest, almost atavistic in a good way. He's like a friendly caveman who discovered video games. The real Encino Man. He has an undeniably eccentric look to his face, but none of it I consider in line with what makes people ugly. His features are all strong and mature. He has an extremely masculine/manly face. The features have a finish you don't see too often today, but far more in older pictures. What I find offputting in a face is softness and roundedness. An unfinished look, like mass is just accruing on the head.

Which leads us to look at the specimen on the right. Eliezer. The "rationalist" Jew who wants to convince you that we must create an orwellian tech-UN that executes anybody who gets too much computing power focused on one task because it's only a couple of steps from GPT4 to Skynet. The particulars of this discussion are for another thread, I just want to look at them. Think of what I said about Ross, and think of how Eliezer is almost like his opposite. It's hard to imagine this face before a certain point in history. He's still more masculine than some of our time, I do believe that the autist personality tends to come with more facial masculinity, but he looks like the integrity of the face he was meant to have has escaped him. Ross looks like he has five times the hard mass in his face Eliezer does. The beard makes it a bit harder to read but Eliezer's face just seems to kind of flacidly collapse downwards.


The comparison that comes to my mind is Joe Silver, who you might recognise if you're a Cronenberg fan. Similar kind of fleshy cerebral Jew face. But just look at how much more solid he looks. Both physically, and as a character. Which one do you think has superior judgment? Should say here, I know Eliezer is a Jew, I don't actually know about Silver. He just kind of has the look. And Ross, I really have no idea. I think he might be some kind of English-descent throwback whose DNA is probably half Neanderthal and half pre Anglo-Saxon. Moved to Poland and married a fan or something. Which I think is actually a rather cool thing to do, and interesting to think about. He seems very comfortable consigning himself to some weird out of the way backwater, and then from there he becomes world famous within his niche just by being entirely himself.
What do you guys interpret from this picture of Machiavelli? It’s uncanny how much it looks like me and was wonder your general consensus on this phenotype.
(05-05-2023, 04:10 PM)Guest Wrote: [Image:]
What do you guys interpret from this picture of Machiavelli? It’s uncanny how much it looks like me and was wonder your general consensus on this phenotype.

I was lab partners with a dude surname of "Aquina" - I presume originating from a family history of remarkably aquiline features. Bore something of a resemblance to Nic here. You don't come across this kind of strange "Mona Lisa" expression today or really in any photograph; I think it might owe to an alien Ren. era Italian ideal type. Anyway, Aquina was a solid programmer and carried my ass through a few assignments. Good face.
I've always found Napoleon to be a good study. 


What is most interesting to me about Napoleon's facial features is that he appears both soft and hard, round and sharp. Most accounts by his contemporaries that I've come across always seem to include some mention of his eyes, describing them as a sort of piercing greyish blue and deep-set to give him a strong brow. In any portrait of Napoleon, he looks as if he was captured in a moment of contemplation. Today, though rare, you can still come across people with wistfully active eyes like this.  

(04-09-2023, 03:08 PM)Hamamelis Wrote: Especially on Twitter, the mention of physiognomy is always tied to politics, i.e. "our guy looks cool, your guy looks weird". I don't want to deny that such commonalities can be found, or that the appearance betrays much of the inner workings of a person. However, it pays to remind yourself of the limits of photography. The best picture in the world cannot display the presence that a man has in the flesh. Handsome actors who impress with their great posture and attentive gaze can appear wholly unremarkable when you see them out their element.

The part that I've emphasised in the above quote stood out to me, particularly because I think it is doubly true in the case of pre-photographic representations like painted portraits. At the same time, I can't help but be convinced that at least part of what helped Napoleon gain his right to rule in a Caesarian sense after the Revolution was not only more competence and tact (which a revolutionary populace hardly, if at all, even understands), but also that he just wasn't disgusting to look at compared to a Robespierre or a Danton. 

Here is Napoleon's 3x grandnephew, who is also a Bourbon. I think he works in banking or PE. In any case, it speaks to the point about the inner workings of a person. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would guess that most people here may care more or think more often about the future of European culture and civilisation than someone with his pedigree.

(05-05-2023, 04:10 PM)Guest Wrote: [Image:]
What do you guys interpret from this picture of Machiavelli? It’s uncanny how much it looks like me and was wonder your general consensus on this phenotype.

Short, somewhat underdeveloped but very wiry, strong "rascal." "Class clown," always doing something ridiculous and dangerous to himself, but not others. May or may not have been a bully in mid-late teens depending on sense of self-worth and confidence. Fun character, occasionally annoying, good person in general. Failed versions become drug addicts, petty criminals. Willing to get hands dirty. Will never be fat. Adrenaline junkie. Often does anything of note with life, is content with his equally mediocre and bland, yet dynamic and active life. Careers will be either a trade, the military or police. Perhaps a sport of some kind.
I hope that the introduction of an orential will not derail the thread too much, but I felt such a shocking presence from this man.


The protege of a highly esteemed food historian. At the time this episode of Iron Chef was filmed, he was the only one in history to be trusted with opening a restaurant of his own. A neotenous face which has clearly undergone great suffering. The result is something like a character from an anime.


I felt both a serene kindness and frightening severity from him.
In contrast to the usual rushing about, he spends the episode painstakingly preparing his ingredients, which results in his losing the bout.
His appearance, dress, body language and approach to cooking are all remarked upon by the commentators.


The same man in his late 20's or early 30's.

I recommend watching the episode for a better impression.
Glad to see this thread, the examples here are all unique.

I have noticed a kind of American aspect that could be termed "porcine"/pig-like. I will use an obvious example for this, but it is important to keep in mind that the porcine physical aspect has further implications than this one individual. Most often, it can be seen in pockets of the rural South. The potential causes are alcoholism and dietary choices for those of ambiguous heritage, but the ambiguous heritage itself might play second fiddle to a debilitating American lifestyle. It is found in the obese often, but traces of it can be noticed in people with better physiques. 

So let's start with Bert Kreischer, a Jewish comedian who is notable for his alcoholism and one popular (and likely untrue) story involving the Russian mafia. Instead of posting recent pictures, I will choose ones when he was younger and less bloated.

Despite the obvious Semitic heritage, he doesn't really look much different here from other American males. This particular type of face and body is present in rural areas: the face is somewhat masculine but mostly doughy, and the expression he has towards the camera is slightly hostile — goes without saying that this is an affectation, because any other reaction to the camera would ruin the image. His physique is somewhat regular, though not excellent. It doesn't appear as a full embodiment of masculinity, that much is true. Considering the hair loss, it does not appear to be the epitome of healthiness either. There's a lingering element of decline here that is brought fully to light in later photos.

However, with this person in particular, there isn't a consistent pattern of decline. It is always there, but never overt until the most recent pictures. The one above is one of the better photos you could find of him at a younger age. Here are two candid photos that capture his younger face.
The first photo looks almost like a fatter, non-mixed version of Andrew Tate, and the second looks like a YouTube food reviewer. The doughy face in the shirtless photo is paired with a doughier body in the other two, and the angles which are used for these ones do not reflect on him well (to say the least). It is a quite inoffensive appearance, but not disarming. There is a comparison here between his deer-in-the-headlights stare and the one seen in some of Chris-Chan's early photos, even if both are caused by different symptoms. This deer-in-the-headlights stare isn't detached, it is placid, maybe even a little fearful.

I will have to guess that the shirtless one is chronologically after these ones, perhaps at a point where Kreischer wanted to be healthier. In any case, it didn't take. Here is the final one.
The same issues that were involved in some of the images have remained consistent. His face has not been given definition by age, nor has his body. It has steadily become more bloated with time, and there is a constant redness to him. Again, the Semitic element does not account for this typical face; it can be closely observed in many areas of the USA. It is one of the worst appearances that happen to the middle-aged American male, where inactivity is woven into every facet of their being. He looks like a person who reacts rather than acts, which is why his podcasts require a host of different people to support what would otherwise be a sinking ship. This face usually has seniority in Warehouse type employment, which is not coincidental since Kreischer is not really that successful as a comedian. Apparently, circumstances involving his agent have prevented him from obtaining further success; personal loyalty to different comedians in the Joe Rogan sphere are the only means of continuing his lifestyle. It is often asked who his audience really is, who would actually subject themselves to the comedy shows where his only joke is taking off his shirt and flaunting a flabby body. The answer is clear: people who look similar to him.
Something I've noticed is the vastly superior speech quality of mid-century people. Here is a very pleasing, tight-mouthed speech pattern with a soothing vocal tonality and superior articulacy to anything we see today in our best people. Just watch a minute of this average 80s woman talking. 


Another example here. Again, just a few seconds to get a feel for the vocal aspects.


Their speech, mannerisms, and faces all match in attractiveness. These sorts of people come from a time when there was emphasis placed on manners and decorum, which is reflected in this very controlled and effective manner of speech. Contemporary people rather tend to spew out words and contort their faces and emote more while communicating less effectively and less information overall, all the while using fewer words and readily adopting inarticulate or nonsense turns of phrase that have become common (like 'I'll try and get it done' instead of 'try to get it done'; or 'Does he still live at home?' instead of 'Does he still live with his parents?'; or using 'tenants' where 'tenets' is intended, which betrays pure mimicry as opposed to active cognition in the act of speech and the choices of words). If you were born in the 40s, you didn't need to be particularly smart to speak properly, but today you probably need 2SD of IQ to effectively self-critique and overcome these sorts of bad habits — and these are such minor ones.

Trump is an example of a person who had this mid-century phenotype, characterized by good speech, an even tone,  and, in his case, a dignified high-society dialect reflective of the now defunct Anglo elite. Some time between 2001 and his reality TV shows he transformed into a contemporary person. He lost the tight mouth of the mid-century person and opened up, his cadence becoming more volatile, his movements less economical, and his overall demeanor less schooled, more boorish. He spiritually changed  classes. He won the election because he truly did embody the spirit of the small town kingpin, which is something like a fast talking Ford dealership owner in a nothing town of 3000 in Illinois or Ohio, someone that the guy who drives a concrete truck can respect as a leader. But here in this video from the 9/11 happening is an altogether different person.


To prove he was not just putting on a good 9/11 face, here he is on Oprah, a good bit further back in time, and his degradation in dialect and mien that I'm talking about, over the course of his life, is even more pronounced.


I find a lot of pleasure and satisfaction in watching these people talk. A big part of this degradation is of course the destruction of white supremacy. These older people simply remind you of how whites tend to be when left to their own cultural devices.

A lot of norwoods have an unfinished voice to go along with the historically queer combination of premature balding + babyface. They have a voice that is not of a fully grown man, but rather more like a teenager, wherein puberty has taken place but the overall spiritual development is stunted.
(02-24-2023, 10:07 PM)JF_ Wrote: [Image:]
Lindyman a.k.a. Paul Skallas. A reputation garnered for the somewhat exceptional quality of his thoughts. Supposedly a man of insight, or at least an expert in recognizing insight from the past.

Lindyman a.k.a. Paul Skallas. A man known for the somewhat exceptional quality of his thoughts. Someone with insight, or at least good at recognizing insight from the past.

He often looks as if he simply isn't present. Old and young at the same time. A teenager cast into the role of a hardboiled character. He's tired, and he doesn't want to be here. He looks lost. I can imagine him in some New Wave film, long shots where he wanders through those Mediterranean cities he so idealizes, tries to talk to women, gets ignored. Un homme qui dort but he fixed his life. It feels the same.


There's much one can say about the appearance of intelligence in a person's eyes. I don't know, he doesn't look that dumb. I can't say I know the appearance of genius either. He doesn't look like someone who should be concerned with wisdom at all, is the thing. He was someone's Dad, someone's neighbor, someone's acquaintance. He's an everyman, an American of the future. He's in a self-aware neo-noir flick. He's the next protagonist of True Detective.

He represents a prevalent type of man on the right. I feel like I've seen a few clones of him around. He grooms himself well, and yet it's obvious - somehow he looks like he rushed everything. He got out of bed late. "What more do you want?"

Gloomy incidental music follows him, mallets playing slow chromatic riffs. He sees some teenagers laughing and running by, turns to raise his eyebrow. He gets out plenty, yet the Sun still hurts his eyes. He has to squint. 

The lack of intelligence in the eyes isn't as pronounced as it seems at first glance. He's not completely stupid. But he looks lost. A tired man, somehow old and young at once. A teenager cast into the role of a hardboiled character. There is a kind of absent-mindedness in every picture of him.

I only see a wog.

Quick Reply
Type your reply to this message here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)