Op-Ed: A Phrenological Investigation into the United States Senate in Two Parts

(Part 1 of 2)


As my journey into Edenic Phrenology (or as I call it, "Racism: Prestige Mode") continues, it seemed only natural to begin applying its principles to places where they're highly relevant to my own long term safety and security, namely the U.S. government. I chose to examine the Senate specifically because the upper house has the most balanced combination of membership size, turnover rate and geographical diversity. As I progressed, some of my findings didn't really surprise me--they felt more like confirmations than revelations. However, some things that I discovered were legitimately unexpected.

I first set out with the goal in mind of making a morph (or at least attempt to make a morph) for the male members of each wing of the Senate: Republican and Democrat. As I was scrolling through the lists of each party's members, something jumped out at me: the statistical imbalance between male and female membership percentage between each party. Of 52 Republicans, only 5 are women (not counting Lindsey Graham ). However, of 46 Democrats, 16 are women. So, the Republican Senatorial corps is merely 9.6% female, while the Democrats' is 34.8% uterus-endowed. That's quite a difference. I'd initially expected the Dems to have more women in the upper house, just not to that extent.

But enough numbers for now--let's look at some of my initial phrenological findings. I decided to make the Democrat morph first, and as I was perusing Google for hi-res images, I noticed a trend among Democratic Senators: a greater-than-expected number of them have unusually sharp and/or extrusive maxillary canine and/or lateral incisor teeth:


"These guys seem like nice, normal, down to earth people. Oooh, I know! Let's put a massively disproportionate amount of power into their hands!"

What does this trend represent? Conventional wisdom says that it indicates a soft, modern diet and consequently sharp, underused frontal maxillary teeth. However, conventional wisdom also says that most politicians are basically decent, hardworking public servants and that race has no scientific or consequential basis in reality--so I'm going to have to ignore conventional wisdom for a moment here and say that this is more than likely a decidedly un-altruistic, predatory trait. What the specific, nuanced details of said trait are, though, I cannot say.

It's also worth noting that this trait isn't limited to the current Democratic Senate roster alone: a number of former politicians and people otherwise involved with politics also display the Dracula-esque canines:


To be fair, Al Gore probably files his down on purpose to use as a weapon in the struggle against ManBearPig.


Having covered the Democratic Senatorial body's statistical hermaphroditism and oddly sharp teeth, let's move onto their overall appearance as a group.

The following morph was made by an amateur after several hours of trial and error--and is subsequently rather rough around the edges--but I'd like to think it does a decent job of conveying the general gestalt of the Democratic Senatorial membership. Also, because images of high ranking politicians that are high-resolution, symmetrical, and publicly available tend to be official portraits, both of the morphs I made have a nice, big, fake smile on their faces.

Anyway--beware. What you're about to see may shock you:

Spoiler

*Gasp*! In the surprise-twist of the century, the average male Democratic Senator looks like a Jew!

I knew he'd be at least somewhat kosher-looking, but I didn't think he'd be quite as physiognomically Hebraic as he actually turned out to be. Starting from the top down, we see the following traits:

• Thick, bushy eyebrows that together form a mild "V-shaped" effect.
• Small, beady eyes with heavy lower lidding (though I suspect the lidding to be exaggerated by age. The average for a Senator of either party is 61 years).
• A long, bulbous nose (I'm hesitant to guess whether the median Democratic nose is hooked or straight downward-facing).
• A smile displaying a thin upper lip opposite a protruding lower lip--a classic Jewish facial feature.
• A fleshy, slightly appearance overall.

So there's your average Democrat! I suggest a new sub-typical classification for him: Kvetchid. All things considered, his appearance was surprisingly unsurprising. And with that, it's time to take a look at the Republicans--who, all things considered, I found to be quite a bit more intriguing than the Dems upon examination.

Whereas Democrats have an unusually high incidence of sharp frontal maxillary teeth, the Republicans, it turned out, had a signature trait of their own: hooded eyes.


You can take the GOP out of the hood, but you can't take the hood out of the GOP.

This trait occurs in Republican Senators at a frequency that is simultaneously bewildering and unsettling: 19 out of 47 or 40.4% of Republican Senators have hooded eyes. It's not really a trait that strikes me as hostile or predatory upon first glance, so I'm not sure what it connotates. My gut tells me it's correlate with predation, as it seems suggestive of inhibited peripheral vision. Also recall Nottuh's observation that hooded eyes have become more prevalent in the Executive branch over time. So based on what I saw while I was gathering images, I tentatively predicted that the Republican morph would resemble a smiling version of the Bankid. What it actually turned out to be, though...

 

(Part 2 of 2)

Spoiler

Oh hey, it's a smiling Bankid! Call it a lucky guess.

His Bankidity isn't actually that surprising. What really caught me off guard about this composite was the gayface, of which he exhibits more than a little bit. He looks like the Bankid's gay brother, "Todd". Suggested subtype classification: Gaynkid.

If you're not familiar with gayface, a fairly recent scientific study performed in Prague does a good job of nailing down the distinctive morphological traits associated with the phenomenon. A key excerpt reads:

Finally, Urban Dictionary offers a surprisingly insightful definition of the phenomenon (selections emboldened for emphasis):

The Republican Senator morph fulfills every one of the attributes listed except for the shorter face.



For perspective, we'll contrast him with his Democratic colleague:

• The Republican exhibits bigger, brighter (in that the sclera are more visible) eyes than the Democrat while exchanging the heavy lower lidding for hooded upper lidding. Additionally, the eyes sit below thinner, higher-arching brows. The large size of the eyes suggests low pre-natal testosterone and a high DR. However:
• Both the way the light is distributed on his face and the elongated dimples on either side of the chin suggest greater chin projection by the Republican--which would contradict his eyes' suggestion of low prenatal T--but recall the Prague study noting that gayface "exhibits a mosaic of both feminine and masculine features."
• His nose is also shorter than the Democrat's, which could be attributable to either greater Gentile ancestry or gayface--possibly both.
• His mouth has thinner lips than the Democrat's and also shows the faint hint of the frontal mandibular (bottom row) teeth whereas the Dem's only shows the maxillary row. Displaying both rows of teeth when smiling is a well-established hallmark of a fake smile and it suggests that he's covering something up about himself.
• Finally, the general tightness (or "muscular activation") mentioned by Urban Dictionary is on full display in the Republican morph. His face is noticeably leaner and "sharper", with more defined laugh lines, dimples, and grooves at either corner of the mouth. This contrasts noticeably with the Dem's looser, fleshier appearance.

So, knowing what we know, let us speculate.

Seeing the average Republican Senator expressing gayface was jarring at first, but when contextualized against the backdrop of recent political developments, things start making sense. It explains the lack of resistance to the gay marriage agenda despite Republicans building a strong district-level (read: midterm re-election-oriented) advantage via gerrymandering and sly redistricting tactics. The archetypical "cuckservative" constantly pays lip service to their alleged dearly-held "conservative values", but is infamously ineffectual when it comes to actually upholding them--let alone enforcing them via legislation. Though I now suspect that "cuck" isn't really technically correct as a prefix--it's hard for a woman to cuckold a man that's not attracted to women. A more appropriate term may be something like "cock-serve-ative" .

Knowing what we now know, one may even suppose that there may be an element of deliberateness and even collusion to the recent unprecedented advance of the gay agenda (alongside comorbid laws protecting widespread moral degeneracy in general). To delineate, the gay Republicans could have been deliberately acting as the Washington Generals to the Democrats' Harlem Globetrotters for the purpose of allowing the gay agenda to be advanced under America's nose. Before Trump came along, the Republican party was little more than an off-brand version of the Democrat party whose defining feature was their invariable tendency to eventually fall in line with the precedents and values the Democrats established. They were just the Democrat party with a 5-10 year lag.

Secondly, it at least partially explains--or at least informs--the bewilderingly aggressive attitude recently adopted by both wings of Congress with regards to Russia. Pipelines and petrodollars aside, the idea that Congressional Republicans, like their Democrat counterparts, harbor resentment toward Russia because of their society's general rejection of homosexuality suddenly doesn't seem that far-fetched when cast in the new light of phrenological analysis. The only difference is that the Republicans would by necessity need to keep their true motives concealed and adopt an outward facade of Cold War machismo as plausible justification for their aggression. For a Senator, the ultimate goal of war is still, of course, salubrious commissions and perks from their paymasters in the Military Industrial Complex. The point is that having a moral reason to despise Russia makes it easier to take the money with a smile and sleep at night when the blood starts spilling.

Finally, what do the hooded eyes mean? Are they correlate with homosexuality? I speculate that they may be linked with the capacity for long-form deception. An ingenopathic, deep-socketed gay man won't have a snowball's chance in hell at lying his way to the utmost heights of government power--meanwhile the actual people who do occupy those heights have a markedly pronounced tendency to display hooded eyes. Is it a coincidence that when you put all their faces together, the average you get is a conspicuously gay-looking one? Putting two and two together, hooded eyes may indicate an ability to effectively conceal one's true, ulterior motives--or they might just be something that's always been there but I've never noticed (though all evidence says this isn't the case).

Anyway, this turned out to be quite the long post, so to conclude: TL;DR, half the Senate are psychopathic gay men, the other half are sleazy, avaricious Jews, women, and Jewish women.

 

Nice post.
I was looking at photos of Tony Blair to compare with your morphs. I found this one, very scary:



As he got older, he fits the Dem morph pretty well:



Horrible person.

 

Lets just say, for the sake of the argument, that Edenology is really fruity and everyone involved is really loopy, and you still reach the same conclusion, would you have used any other scientific method.

What does that say? All it takes is one good look at a guy to get that QRD(quick rundown).

 

Yeah, that's definitely the face of an altruist if I've ever seen one. He certainly doesn't look disconnectedly, predatorily sinister to the point where he looks roughly akin to how I imagine a serial killer would look on the upside of a quaalude binge.

Spoiler

Oh wait, yes he does

Wasn't Blair the ostensibly center-left PM from the Labour party who basically threw Britain full-force into the invasion of Iraq with absolutely no second thought or hesitation? It just goes to show you the undivided, unitary nature of the mainstream Western political parties.

Precisely this. Whether you use deductive, inductive, or causal reasoning, some combination of these three, the classic scientific method, abstract synesthetic intuition, or just plain old gut instinct, the conclusion an honest individual will reach is always the same: the ruling classes are disproportionately comprised of an unsavory blend of parasitic pharisees and sociopathic pedos.

"Not only does he have the face of a leader, but he's also the officially sanctioned boss of Team Labour. I am an enlightened, tolerant member of Team Labour, unlike my dumb neighbors who are members of our dastardly, thuggish rivals, the Tories. Since Blair supports the unprovoked invasion of a foreign country, so do I. This is directly contrary to the supposed principles of Team Labour, but that's not very fun to think about, plus the boss is saying it's a good idea, so it must be true."

I think the notion that something about the Bankid phenotype elicits compliance from mono-systemic thinkers/sapiens is worth looking into. To elaborate, the Bankid seems to be a corrupted or "fallen" version of the original benevolent pharoanic archetype that I've seen alluded to around the Edenism-inclined corners of the web. For instance, long-skulled Imhotep is generally thought to be the individual most responsible for pioneering the fields of architecture, engineering and medicine. By contrast, 4500 years later long-toothed Al Gore is thought to be the individual most responsible for pioneering a massive cash-grabbing scheme that preys upon peoples' otherwise altruistic instinct toward stewardship of their environment.

 

This. Predators and evil thrive in shadow. Happy, neat little linear thought-trains chug obliviously on (I think I can! I think I can!). But the pines grow dense and dark, right up to the tracks themselves. If you want to see a wolf, watch your blind spot.

Alternatively: Even the Void abhors a Vacuum.

To be a tad tangential, I've speculated in the past that decline from superior archetypes explains the ascendance of Darwinist Fundamentalism in biology. The theory arises from introspection; the consequence of relatively intact metacognition contemplating impaired cognition. There is a sense of discord, of weakness, and of inexplicable uneven retardation in the mind of the evolutionary biologist. He observes the unevenness of his own thoughts, yet he also lives in an era of spectacular technological progress, of increases in complexity moving hand in hand with chaotic upheaval. A corollary of Malthusian theory and observations of population change over time correctly convince him that intergenerational change can account for features he sees in himself, and indeed explain his global introspective impression of discord. So he says that Things Fall Apart, and that is their strength. All life proceeds by disintegration and death, and disorder and decay are actually hallmarks of order and development. The error in Darwinism lies in its laughable overapplication as a Unified Theory of Life, rather than as an effective model for one driver of population change. This mistake persists because natural selection is common, while macro-speciation is very, very rare. Further, most scientists suck at metaphysics and to question the particular assumptions underlying Darwinist Fundamentalism is to question whether we live in an age of progress at all. Darwinism, properly understood, implies that the best, brightest, noblest and most complex humans ever to have lived do not walk the planet today. Indeed, it hints that people today have degenerated, possibly even fallen, perhaps from a very great height. Darwinists radically overuse their own theory because to soberly assess its implications in their proper context is to admit horrifying truths about modern man that threaten their vanity, and utterly shatter their worldview and belief in perpetual progress.

I would have upvoted this fine post, but I'm an oppressed minority so it seems I can't.

#trapezuntinelivesmatter #purpleisthenewblack #remembermonemvasia

 

You cheeky immivaders should contact some baron to initiate the typing process and claim your suffrage as Troo Thals!

 

Spoiler: TRIGGER WARNING!

Thank you for mentioning this. The whole post does a good job of expounding upon the underlying reasons I (and indeed many others on the alternative right) feel a reflexive gut reaction of revulsion when exposed to the vile materialist cult of !¡!SCIENCE!¡! (or “Scienceism”) in any of its incarnations.


Due to its uniquely disgusting combination of laughably false foundational premises and thoroughgoing self-righteousness I’ve always been content to dismiss Darwinian Fundamentalism outright when possible and mock it relentlessly when not fortunate enough to be able to immediately ignore it. So thank you for illuminating the link between between it and the contemporary failure to examine or even entertain the possibility that the people alive today are not the “most evolved” in history.


The appropriately-named blog Darwinian Fundamentalism | http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.ca does a great job of isolating and displaying the gross intellectual shortcomings of !SCIENCE!:

Scienceism wants you to discover the whole big world of unknowns out there. Just don’t ask any deep questions! We wouldn’t want any "pointless" delays in your “progress”.


His use of the word “progress” here is particularly illuminating because it implies a linearity of thought that is resultant of a mind with an above average endowment of conscientiousness and rote intelligence but an apparently nonexistent—as you perhaps more accurately say, retarded—degree of associative horizon. The train chugs along the path contentedly, confident that the line it is following will extend forever into space. Its total lack of peripheral vision (note that Richard Dawkins has hooded eyes) ensures that it does not apprehend that an infinitely extending line will invariably intersect or be intersected by other forms of an indeterminate nature and that those other forms may inhibit, impede, or otherwise retard () its all-important "progress".


One of the key markers regarding identification of this fascinating subspecies of Homo Sapiens Midwitus in the wild is its comprehensive, all-pervading sense of self-righteous arrogance. The fact that true genius requires a not-insignificant degree of humility does not occur to the Darwinian Fundamentalist. Newton famously stated that “If [he] had seen further, it was by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Forget about the Darwinian Fundamentalist realizing that he is standing upon the shoulders of giants. To do that, he would have to understand his own position in relation to the intellectual grand scheme of things, which he can’t because of his limited field of vision. Therefore, not only does he not comprehend that he is standing upon the shoulders of giants, he outright denies that the giants even exist, and is convinced that thinking about the possibility that they do results in "pointless delays" to his “progress”.


This is why I am inherently mistrustful of any Grand Unifying Theory (i.e. fundamentalism) insofar as any form of sociology or anthropology is concerned. The interwoven, entropically labyrinthian nature of sociology, politics, biology, anthropology, economics, et al ensures that any such Grand Theory will necessarily be restrictive to the point that it sacrifices truthful understanding in exchange for a degree of inside-the-lines-colored simplicity that is pleasing to a mind that can neither entertain simultaneous thought processes nor effectively integrate individual ideas into a cohesive whole.


"The Eternal Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you." —Old Polish proverb

"The Eternal Frontal Lobe cries out in virtue signaling as it strikes your intellectual contributions from the official record.” —Old Nobilid Proverb

yo fam i aint tryin 2 get typed unless i git some gibs.. like dat welfare chekk unomsayin?

i need da welfure and i need big booty hos. i alzo need mo money fo dem programs so i can rebildz dem purramid spaceships n sheeit unomsaiyin?

Spoiler

I'll start taking pictures and compiling biographical information shortly.

 

It wouldn't hurt a Democrat if he was outed as gay, but it would hurt a Republican. Now imagine being outed as a pederast. This is why the American Security Council gathered intelligence on Congressmen to rate their reliability in supporting the Pentagon's agenda.

 

Give a brothah his gibs, brutha. We wuz Enkidu and sheeit. He need that gibs fo his epigenetics thurpy. #BleachLivesMatter

Apercus' comment on Republican gayface makes sense. Pedophiles are easy to blackmail and motivate. The crooks in charge need a way of keeping their stable in line. ButtCrack Hos for the Shadow Pimps.

 

Also, can't believe I forgot to say this, but massive post, bro. Good job. Bald Ginger Vampire Man is my favorite. This thread is WINNING.

 

Thank you! And yeah, the first time I saw that guy while doing my initial Google search for pictures of Senators, I basically did a double-take when I saw that particular image. My first thought was, "Am I going crazy, or is that a snake-man wearing a human skin costume?"

The answer remains to be determined, but I'm leaning towards a "yes".

Now I know what I'm going to name my band.

 

Your assessment of these new "television scientists" is wonderful. I have been thinking the same thing, (Probably a lot of us have) but am too retarded to verbalize it as well and coherently as you have.

 

I had a thread about senators a while back, I think it was in one of the old forums? We pointed about a bunch of very amusing specimens. Some of my favorites:








Regarding the gay hypothesis, it could be related with the fact that a lot of these guys are pedophiles. The banker oligarchs have an ingenious system of getting politicians to promote policies which advance their interests: They find pedophiles, help them get into political positions, offer them kids to fuck, video-tape it, and then blackmail them to vote in a bankid-friendly way. This has been confirmed by whistleblowers. I think Aeoli shared a video about this a while back.

This morph of child molesters I made back in the day shows a lot of the same "gay face" traits, although it doesn't have hooded eyes:



Regarding morph technique, are you just overlaying images? I've gotten very good results using a program called Abrosoft Face Mixer along with Gimp. After exporting the morph, I tweak the levels, saturation, brightness-contrast, etc with GIMP then sharpen it with a third-party plugin called G'MIC which gives you a bunch of extra filters. G'MIC has a sharpening filter called "octave sharpening" which I have found to give better results than any of Gimp's native sharpening filters.

 

Yeah, there are some true paragons of altruism in either wing of the Senate.






If you look closely at Ron Wyden, you can see the vestigial remnant of the gills he relied on to breathe in his primordial environment.



Some people have faces that say, "I'm smart". Others have faces that say, "I'm kindhearted".

Senator Chuck Grassley and Mayor Bob Filner's faces say, "We were both spawned from the same brood-hive deep within the dread lair of Y'golnac the Defiler".




Once Bill Cassidy's term is up, he will return to his home planet Pedoface-5, capital world of the Pedoface System

I probably should've included a reference to that in the OP, but I didn't want to get too extreme in my speculation due to Koanic's concerns regarding the Overton window. I figured that by demonstrating that a mathematically averaged sum of Politicians' faces resulted in a product that was both predatory (bankid features) and homosexual (gayface and the subsequent links to the studies proving the concept's validity) it simultaneously strengthened the case made by the whistleblowers (that many politicians are blackmailed pedos) and also the resultant idea that pedophilia is a corollary of homosexuality without having to actually say either of these things directly (and thus violate the public Overton window). Also, I'd very much like to watch that video.

For the most part. I'm using an image-editing program called Affinity Photo to make a Stack with a picture of each person's face. Once aligned properly, you can select whether you want the program to compute the averages using either mean or median (mean usually gives a more coherent picture). From there I tweaked the brightness/white balance/shadows; etc and used a sharpening filter called clarity, which is native to Affinity. The end result is decent, but not nearly as well-defined and coherent as a lot of the morphs I've seen you post. I remember looking at each of the morphs when I was done with them and thinking, "lol This looks like something Polymath would do after chugging a fifth of vodka". I'll definitely be looking around for a plug-in for octave sharpening in the near future, as well as Abrosoft's program.

Incidentally, to anyone reading who needs to do some image manipulation, I'd recommend Affinity Photo over Photoshop. You only have to pay $50 for it one time and then its yours forever, rather than "renting" it month-to-month like Adobe's products. It's nearly as powerful as Photoshop, with most of the same high-end features (impressive native filter and effects suites, tools, unlimited layers, up to 8,000 undos; etc).

You show me someone with any inclination towards Wrongthink (otherwise known as "the ability to form accurate conclusions from evidence and data") and I'll show you someone who is revolted by the entire !SCIENCE! phenomenon in its entirety. I'm glad I could be of service in explaining why it's so very reprehensible on so very many levels. The public has a right to know!

 

For a decent critique of this rot in science, dating way back to 1969, read 'Science is God' by David Horrobin. The pertinent observations of a particularly brilliant research medic correctly identify the danger of scientism, but at that stage did not anticipate its infecting actual scientists. Later on, he tried to break the stranglehold of peer review by the foundation of the journal Medical Hypotheses.