Dalrock has recently drawn attention to efforts of Matt Chandler (and various other name-level Prot leaders) to infect Protestant churches with unrepentant homosexuals. Time for a physiognometric reading! I should say that I don’t know what most celebrities look like because I never had a reason to care for most of my life. We were never going to meet, after all, and so it was only their ideas that mattered. And properly so, I suppose, but the ability of physiognomy to give advance indication is valuable.
One of the first things I check is which side of the eye/face is more guarded. In nearly every picture I looked at, Chandler is more guarded on the left side of his face. This strongly indicates he is more troubled by his internal life than his external life. I do not trust that in a Christian leader. Such a man ought to have his internal life well in order before assuming the station.
His ears stick out a lot, indicating a non-conformist attitude. Not unusual in a professional public speaker who’s done a lot of work to “build his own brand”, as a marketeer would say. This nonconformity is confirmed by the backward slant of his ears:
The ears also have large inner ridges, indicating a focus on his inner world and personal intuition. If he had conformist/logical features to combine with that then I’d expect a stalwart Bible-thumper. Instead, we see that intuitive focus combined with external social focus, predicting an unwillingness to be unpopular.
Thin lips indicate a guardedness about his personal life. The nose is concave in profile, indicating a need for appreciation. The combination of these two suggests Chandler is needy for external validation.
Large nostrils mean high social energy.
If the lines at the edges and bottoms of his eyes were constant then it would indicate sexual perversion or other dysfunction but they don’t seem to be constant throughout the pictures I sampled. It’s hard to rule out the effects artificial lighting, sleep deprivation or other stressors upon the vision.
Eyebrows are curved and widely spaced, meaning socially oriented and “not a detail person”, respectively.
Summation, a very energetic and social person, craves social approval, has skeletons in his closet. His personality is definitely not a rules-oriented one and his forehead lacks determination lines. A very malleable public speaker.
Of course, physiognomy can’t tell us what specifically is wrong with his internal life, only that something is. Possible reasons can be self-doubt, a quarrelsome wife, heavy debts or secret sin. My guess, and it’s a guess made on his behavior and teachings rather than facial features, is that Chandler has ceased to believe in Christ, if he ever did. He works for the status, being in the limelight, a sought-after speaker whose opinions shape peoples’ lives, and if he needs to pretend Christianity to continue that gravy train then he’ll do it. But he fears exposure, hence a relatively enjoyable external life and not-enjoyable internal life.
He’s not the vampire. He’s the Renfield opening the window and giving invitations because the alternative is getting off the stage. Whatever his internal problem is, he won’t risk his external life to address it, and his external life is “trustworthy Christian leader”.
Something inside him is at odds with that.
One of the first things I check is which side of the eye/face is more guarded. In nearly every picture I looked at, Chandler is more guarded on the left side of his face.
this makes sense … it’s how a person expresses themselves.
but the rest … size and shape of ears, nose, mouth … those are things a person cannot control (without surgery), so i don’t understand how physical features we are born with reflect our character?
How the physical features we are born with reflect the character that we are both with, you mean. Not unreasonable to believe there’s a connection.
On one level, I don’t know. Nearly all the materials on physiognomy I find describe the relationships but not the causation. It annoys me but doesn’t change the fact of the relationships existing. One reason I do celebrities on the Internet is because their public biographies can confirm/deny the accuracy of a reading.
On another level, humans are hardwired for faces and facial expressions. It makes sense that God would arrange for those relationships to exist. I like to think that in Heaven, our character will be literally written on our faces. No more grasping in the dark, wondering who people really are.
Sometimes facial features influence us by first influencing how others perceive us. This is most true of eyebrows. If we appear to be angry, and people assume we’re angry, it can accidentally reward actually being angry.
Then there’s specific features. For example, large nostrils correlating with high social energy. This comes from polluted areas in China’s history, when breathing was actually an effort. It was observed that people with small airways were more prone to illness and conserved their energy, not often participating in social events, simply because it was hard to breathe. While the situation today is not so extreme, the reasoning still makes sense.
Note that our appearance is never one of good vs evil, just as no personality is inherently good or evil. It only reflects general tendencies. People can and do change over time and if there’s something you don’t like about your personal physiognomy, you can always decide to change your behavior or appearance. People do this all the time, women with cosmetics and men with beards… both sexes with the glasses they choose to wear.
‘His ears stick out a lot, indicating a non-conformist attitude.’
My ears do the same. Didn’t know that’s what it meant.
Would you describe yourself as nonconformist? Serious question, I need the feedback.
interesting.
i do not believe we’re born with our character … personality, yes. but character is developed.
People can and do change over time and if there.s something you don.t like about your personal physiognomy, you can always decide to change your behavior or appearance. People do this all the time, women with cosmetics and men with beards. both sexes with the glasses they choose to wear.
i was wondering about this … if his physiognomy would be different if his hair covered his ears and you couldn’t tell their shape or if they stood out … or facial hair … or make up for women … or even a hat/clothing/accessories.
so then physiognomy can be changed by how we present ourselves – hair, make up, facial hair, accessories, clothing.
I have a chin I’m not proud of. In fact, in young adulthood I was not forceful at all with my opinions, frequently second-guessing myself, as a weak, receded chin will indicate. Since discovering red pill issues, healthy masculinity and how far my society has fallen due to lack of courage, I’ve made serious efforts to up my dominance and aggression. But my chin hasn’t reshaped to keep up, not after my formative years are done.
My brow has changed because it contains more flesh & muscle. So, you want to pay more attention to the fleshy bits than the bony bits, which are generally set at maturity. For example, the mouth is 100% muscle. Its shape can always change; therefore, the corners (up for optimism, down for pessimism, from habits of smiling/frowning) are one of the most reliable indicators of mood. Do you ever notice when people “smile with their lips but not their eyes”? That’s physiognomy.
Physiognomy is never a death sentence. One of Christianity’s first lessons is that we can always choose who we want to be, moment by moment. One application of physiognomy, in fact, is to adjust our appearance to best match our internal reality. I suspect this is what you women do by instinct when you reshape your eyebrows.
Perhaps I’ll grow a dominant-looking beard to align my actual physiognomy to what I would like it to be. For now, however, I shave my head just to save thirty seconds of grooming in the morning.
that all makes sense to me. thank you for taking the time to explain it ..
‘Would you describe yourself as nonconformist?’
Yes and no.
I try to be obedient to God’s will…so by that regard I should be nonconformist to the globohomo world.
‘Perhaps I.ll grow a dominant-looking beard to align my actual physiognomy to what I would like it to be.’
That’s what I did since I have a weak chin and jawline. While I wasn’t blessed with great facial features in that regard I did get good beard growing abilities. The Lord is merciful after all.
“I try to be obedient to God.s will.so by that regard I should be nonconformist to the globohomo world.”
It’s not a disobedience thing. A lot of business owners and other self-made men have nonconformist ears; they’re the most willing to “go independent” and rely on themselves instead of following the rules, without breaking the rules.
Everybody in the Manosphere is a nonconformist to the world these days.
is physiognomy something you do professionally, also?
No, I’m a total amateur who taught himself out of a handful of books. That’s a good reason to not take my analyses at face value. I didn’t even know the field existed until Heartiste posted about pedoface. I just grabbed that football and ran with it.
There aren’t many reputable sources. Physiognomy was nearly a lost art, the Chinese school because of the Glorious Revolution and the Western school because of Enlightenment science. Physiognomy couldn’t match the mathematical rigor of chemistry and physics and so faded into obscurity.
The old wisdom is new again.
I do think globohomo/pedoface is a thing. Vile acts like that can’t stay hidden.
This particular priest is Fr. James Martin and he’s fully on board and promotes the LGBT nonsense as a Catholic priest. Should be a slam dunk for you, Gunner Q.
No, that’s Cardinal David DiNardo.
Wait, is it Cardinal Theodore McKarrick?
Dear God… they’re NPCs. Right down to that smile.