False Advertising: Women Hide Their True Faces with Makeup

Are you sure that chick your with is hot? Or is it all paint and plastic?

Are you sure that chick your with is hot? Or is it all paint and plastic?

Maybe first dates need to involve going swimming. The deception is real, gentlemen.

If ever there was a palpable demonstration of women’s innate tendency to dissemble – disguise or conceal themselves and their true feelings – it plays out with the unbelievable amount of makeup Western women wear. A man doesn’t know what kind of creature is really under there until all the war paint is washed off. Just look at the demonstration above. That chick goes from a 4 on a good day without makeup to a 7 or 8 with it. (She loses points for having a flat chest).

Obviously, wearing makeup is a woman’s attempt to raise her sexual market value, no matter what women say. (As always, watch what women DO not what they SAY). Makeup is such an obsession that American women spend nearly $500 billion a year on cosmetics. They then laughably say they don’t want to be judged on physical beauty, proving both the concept of the hamster rationalization and female susceptibility to groupthink correct at the same time.

Psychology today has its own theory about why women wear makeup.

Beyond any attractiveness measures, cosmetics may help women create certain favorable social perceptions. Indeed, a recent experiment revealed that women pictured wearing cosmetics were evaluated as healthier, more confident, and even having greater earning potential than the same women wearing no makeup.

Make no mistake, social creatures they are, women have been enhancing themselves in an attempt to catch the eye of an Alpha male and to stay competitive with other women for thousands of years. The history of cosmetics goes back at least 6,000 years and involves every society on earth. Much to the chagrin of feminists, biologically and psychologically women know their appearance is what counts to men, and men could give a rat’s ass about their college degree and all the YouGoGrrl careerism they’re flaunting. It always has been and always will be this way.

Makeup hides women’s facial flaws and enhances their two most important facial features: eyes and lips.

Science confirms what we in the manosphere already know. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found women wear “romantic red” lipstick to attract men. Specifically, red lips subconsciously advertise to potential mates that another kind of lips are also of high quality. Current Anthropology did a scientific study and found females wear makeup to advertise their fertility, hide their age, and retain neotany, or juvenile features in the adult animal. In other words, old women want to be able to compete with nubile 20-year olds. It’s the desperate female attempt to fight the effects of The Wall and the loss of social capital and power.

It all goes back to youth, fertility, and beauty, the holy trinity of female sexual market value. Of course, the sexual market is the granddaddy of all other markets. Even the New York Daily News got the memo:

Women know this intrinsically and they understand that the mouth and eye region are the two most powerful parts of the face for communication. This is why women innately seek to highlight their eyelids by wearing mascara and eye shadow, and their lip region by wearing lipstick and lip liner. The additional of color to these importance facial areas increased the non-verbal femininity cues perceived by others.

But, as Western women’s attitudes make them repellent towards most men, are they overcompensating by wearing too much makeup? The Atlantic found an interesting little nugget:

People thought the [American] models looked best when they were wearing just 60 percent as much makeup as they had applied.

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology did a study of makeup and attractiveness and found a plausible reason why Western women cake it on:

Taken together, these results suggest that women are likely wearing cosmetics to appeal to the mistaken preferences of others. These mistaken preferences seem more tied to the perceived expectancies of men, and, to a lesser degree, of women.

So, women are wearing too much makeup, and they’re doing it to meet the perceived expectations of men. Yep, we have a case of overcompensation here since bitchiness and frigidness and carousel riding drives quality men away. Feminism has not been kind to women, especially the dupes that believe in it.

Alicia Keys has been pushing a no-makeup campaign in an effort to stay in the headlines

Alicia Keys has been pushing a no-makeup campaign in an effort to stay in the headlines

Foregoing Makeup

Some women like Mila Kunis (Jackie on That 70s Show) are calling for women to post no makeup selfies and eschew makeup, no doubt in a bid to get attention in the cutthroat and sociopathic PR game. Alicia Keys also put out the Strong, Independent Woman propaganda when she did a photo shoot without makeup.

[I was] the strongest, most empowered, most free, and most honestly beautiful that I have ever felt.

Keys has even started a no makeup campaign and has created controversy because of it. Read: As her star fades, this is her attempt at staying in the news. Keys posted this after her recent makeup-free appearance at the VMAs.

Y’all, me choosing to be makeup free doesn’t mean I’m anti-makeup.

Whatever. Feminists want women to stop wearing makeup altogether and here we are just trying to find some balance between no makeup and face fraud. Why must women choose one extreme or the other in so many things they do rather than trying to achieve a sense of balance?

A little makeup goes a long way. It’s just that makeup application become such a deceptive art in modern times a man can be dating a dog without knowing it. Nothing wrong with being sexy and alluring, but when it gets to the point the woman with the makeup looks nothing like the one without it, we have a problem.

When I worked in the news business it was amazing to see our female “stars” without their face paint on. Well, maybe amazing isn’t the word for it. It was horrifying. Every single female anchor easily got their SMV cut in half without makeup on.

It certainly is interesting to know what’s lurking behind all those cosmetics. Just be prepared when your “catch” takes them off. Women have been wearing so much makeup for so long when a man sees her true face he’s almost as horrified as when a woman stops acting and her real personality comes out.

Time for a swim?

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

The Chrysler Turbine Car Reflects Bygone Era of American Greatness

Chrysler achieved the feat of putting a jet turbine engine in a car in the 1960s

Chrysler achieved the feat of putting a jet turbine engine in a car in the 1960s

Imagine, a jet-powered car. Chrysler made it a reality back in the 1960s, even though the idea was unfortunately short lived. The Chrysler Turbine is just what the name says – a jet turbine powered car. It’s quite a remarkable engineering feat, and not only reflects an era when not only the chrome was thick and the women were straight (Michael Savage’s great line) but an era when American car companies were fearless instead of gutless.

Jay Leno has one of the last surviving Turbines. You can watch Leno driving his Turbine around as well as demonstrating a cool, vintage technical video about how the Turbine works on YouTube. It sounds like a jet sitting on the tarmac when he fires it up and whisks away in it. Leno says of the Turbine:

Most were destroyed by Chrysler for tax and liability reasons, which is a shame, because to this day everyone who rides in a Turbine says, “Whoa, this feels like the future!” You turn the key and there’s a big whoosh and a complete absence of vibration… I think it’s the most collectible American car—it was so different. Most of all, the Chrysler Turbine is a reminder that all the cool stuff used to be made in the U.S. I hope it will be again.

The jet engine theme carries over to the rear of the Chrysler Turbine

The jet engine theme carries over to the rear of the Chrysler Turbine

Other than a couple handfuls of survivors (nine in total), all Chrysler Turbines were recalled and crushed. Perhaps because a turbine engine, once realized and after a few generations of engineering could likely eliminate the need for most mechanics. The turbine engine only used 1/5 of the number of moving parts as a regular car engine, and turbines are dead reliable as they power jet aircraft all over the world. Of the 1.1 million miles of driving accumulated by testers, downtime on the cars stood at only 4% and was the result of owners incorrectly using leaded gas. The Chrysler Turbine could also use just about any type of fuel, an engineering feat that surely upset the Seven Sister oil companies of the day. Gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, vegetable oil, and even Tequila – as demonstrated by Mexico’s then-President Adolfo Lopez-Mateos – could power the Turbine.

The Turbine is all the more impressive since Chrysler engineers worked hard to have cool exhaust coming out of the back of a very hot engine, and succeeded as exhaust gas temperatures were LOWER than other automobiles of the day. Also in the “cool” department, the Turbine does not have a traditional “coolant temp” gauge, it has an inlet temp gauge which reads 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. Performance and fuel economy from the engine was good for its day, and continued refinement of the design would have no doubt advanced the design.

Other than the engine, everything else about the Turbine is pretty much stock 1960s Chrysler, except the body of the car which was manufactured in Italy. Its design is not gaudy but elegant, another impressive achievement in an era in which automotive styling could in your face. The project was totally abandoned by 1977.

The Chrysler Turbine is a symbol of time when America was self-confident in its ability to do just about anything, like put a man on the moon, and the car reflects that pride. It also reflects the ballsy nature of men who ran corporations back then. They were fearless and willing to try new ideas instead of rehashing old ideas in pursuit of quarterly profits. How unfortunate for us the micromanagers and bean counters took over.

The fear of failure is worse than failure itself. Something we should remember as men and as a nation. While the car was never a commercial success, perhaps because it was so costly, the idea was sound and continued development of the Turbine should have continued. The shelving of this idea by Chrysler means the dominance of a 100-year old design, the internal combustion engine continues to this day. How many more great ideas were shelved because of the influence of big oil companies?

For now, all we can do is enjoy this little slice of history and wonder about what might have been.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

Poll of the Week | August 30, 2016

Are you getting the hell out of Dodge if the Clintons are put back into office?

Are you getting the hell out of Dodge if the Clintons are put back into office?

Each Tuesday we pose a question to get feedback from you, our readers. Comments are welcomed. If your response does not conform to the answers presented or you would like to expand on your answer, leave a comment. Each poll opens on Tuesday and is closed the following Monday.

Results from last week’s poll, Do you think the Clintons are criminal masterminds: A full 61% of The New Modern Man readers said, yes, the Clintons are archetypal sociopathic masterminds. Whether it be a long (and growing) list of bodies of people who were “Arkancided” or the dirty dealings of the Clinton Foundation or the latest scandal involving Hillary’s health, the Clintons are no strangers to dirty politics. However, 34% of our readers think they’re just lucky to have the right (i.e. globalist and elite) connections, and the only reason they get by with murder is the fact they’re doing the bidding of the power structure. Only 4% said they’re just a sweet, innocent little old couple. (Huh? I put that answer in there as a joke…I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion).

This week’s poll asks Are you considering leaving America in the coming year? In the face of coming censorship under a possibly Hillary administration along with the already gynocentric, Beta-male exploiting tax system and growing marginalization of men and especially white men, the number of people renouncing their citizenship is at record highs. Not only that, some estimates say the number of Americans living abroad has shot up to nearly 9 million souls fleeing tyranny. The power structure is already signaling censorship is coming by setting up coordinated attacks on the alt-right by the power structure to set up the narrative that censorship is needed to deal with us dissidents (i.e. the Joel Stein Time hit piece, Hillary’s speech on the alt-right, and ensuing copycat hit pieces from lazy ass news rooms who localize whatever they read in Time). Are you going to stay and hope for the best or get out while the getting is good?

This Week’s Poll

Results from Last Week’s Poll

Do you think the Clintons are criminal masterminds?

Poll-Aug24

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

Election Fraud Made Easy: Voting Machines Can Be Easily Hacked

Electronic voting machines have security holes you could drive a Mack truck through

Electronic voting machines have security holes you could drive a Mack truck through

Sitting ducks. That’s how most voting machines in America can be described. The question is, were they designed that way? Or is it just another case of government bureaucracy FAIL. Computer science professors are calling out the sheer ineptitude with which these machines were designed. They’re easy to hack, potentially cancelling out the votes of thousands if not millions. What’s worse, that’s assuming the programming wasn’t designed with an algorithm to rig elections in the first place. And, as we will see, there’s a long history of funny business at the ballot box in America.

Dan Wallach, a computer science professor at Rice University told the press how crappy electronic voting machines really are:

This isn’t a crazy hypothetical anymore. Once you bring nation states’ cyber activity into the game? These machines, they barely work in a friendly environment.

Wallach tried to tell government bureaucrats in Houston electronic voting machines were a bad idea before they were purchased. But, of course, know it all paper pushers didn’t listen.

My testimony was: ‘Wow, these are a bad idea. They’re just computers, and we know how to tamper with computers. That’s what we do.’ The county clerk, who has since retired, essentially said, ‘You don’t know anything about what you’re talking about. These machines are great!’ And then they bought them.

Wallach continues:

We read the code, and found really, really bad problems. Actually, let me change that. We found unacceptable problems.

Andrew Appell, another computer guru at Princeton University echoes Dan Wallach’s concerns. Elections could be hacked by another nation or even a pimply faced kid down the street.

It’s well within the capabilities of a country as sophisticated as Russia. Actually, it’s well within the capabilities of much less well-funded and sophisticated attackers.

Jeremy Epstein of the non-profit SRI international also voiced concerns about how easy to break into many voting machines are.

You could have broken into one of these with a very small amount of technical assistance. I could teach you how to do it over the phone. It might require an administrator password, but that’s okay, the password is admin.

Epstein continues:

Bottom line is that if no elections were ever hacked (and we have no way of knowing if it happened), it’s because no one with even a modicum of skill tried.

Often, the best cons are those hiding in plain sight. Could vote rigging really be that simple? Did the government purchase these machines knowing they could be hacked at will by even a novice, and then proceed to rig the outcomes of close elections? There is precedent for this scenario, as strange as it may seem to some.

Historian Tracy Campbell, who wrote Deliver the Vote, claims our electoral house has never been in order. There has always been cheating, even since the earliest days of America. Who cheated? Why everyone from Boss Tweed, William Randolph Hearst, Huey Long, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, to George W. Bush, as well as countless local and state politicians of all parties.

Interestingly, Clint Curtis just testified before Congress, under oath, that Congressman Tom Feeney had approached him way back in 2000 (when electronic voting became a big topic after the Bush-Gore election debacle) about rigging the machines in such a way that close elections would be tilted to a predetermined winner. The whole system seems to be rife with cheating.

Sanders supporters have long alleged fraud by Hillary, but they'll still go press the "D" this fall

Sanders supporters have long alleged fraud by Hillary, but they’ll still go press the “D” this fall

Designed to Be Hacked?

POLITICO just published an article claiming voting machines could be hacked in as little as 7 minutes by virtually any hacker. This threat assumes that election supervisors are clean as the driven snow and wouldn’t be complicit in rigging elections in their districts. Contrary to the what most of the oblivious American public thinks, elections can be and have been rigged even before computerized vote hacking became a big story. POLITICO reported:

1948 saw the infamous “Lyndon Landslide,” in which Johnson mysteriously overcame a 20,000 vote deficit in his first Senate race, a miracle that Robert Caro reports was the almost certain result of vote rigging.

A new twist just out from the FBI confirms “foreign” hackers could have compromised two state election rolls. One in Illinois and one in Arizona. While no votes were affected, data on 200,000 voters was downloaded in Illinois. This shows the ease with which not only voting machines but databases with voter information can be hacked.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of a cybersecurity firm says the problems with potential vote tampering exist from the ballot boxes themselves all the way back to where the votes are counted. The potential for hackers break into voting systems exists at every level of this poorly thought-out and poorly executed electronic voting plan. Government computer systems aren’t much different from the laptop used to write up this article.

Those are just regular PCs. God knows what’s protecting those.

Many state electronic voting machines are well over 10 years old, too…which makes them easier to hack.

Just this year during the primaries, Hillary Clinton did the best against Bernie Sanders in areas where voting machines are the most compromised, according to blogger Doug Hatlem.

Hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the United States are using voting machines or vote tabulators that have flunked security tests. Those jurisdictions by and large are where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is substantially outperforming the first full wave of exit polling in her contest against Senator Bernie Sanders.

Of course, there have been widespread allegations of fraud by Sanders supporters throughout the 2016 campaign. Hatlem points out correlation does not equal causation, but a strong correlation does at least warrant an investigation. But we all know there will be no investigation.

So, what do we have? Proof that voting machines are easily hacked and could have been designed to tilt election results. Computer security analysts telling us what a joke electronic voting machines are from a security standpoint. Election rigging precedents from decades past. Strong correlations between precincts with faulty voting machines and areas where Hillary did best in the 2016 primaries.

This all comes together to create quite a concern for the legitimacy of U.S. elections past and present. It seems the power structure heeded the words of Joseph Stalin well when he said those casting the votes decide nothing, and those counting the votes decide everything.

Yet again, we see an American institution rigged from top to bottom. Do you have faith in this system? Is the House of Cards already stacked in Hillary’s favor?

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

Unity Needed in Men’s Communities

Rather than fighting amongst ourselves we should be fighting a common enemy - feminism

Rather than fighting amongst ourselves we should be fighting a common enemy – feminism

Unity is strength. Division is weakness.

If there’s one thing that becomes readily apparent when one spends a lot of time in online men’s communities, it’s that there’s a lot of discord among men who really should be able to get along with each other. While nobody is recommending we all get together and sing Kumbaya, we do need unite as best we can towards a common enemy – feminism and its parent, the gynocentric state.

This isn’t possible when we are vivisecting every men’s topic and fighting over minutiae. The great divide places most men into one of the following groups, often opposing each other:

  • MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way
  • MRA – Men’s Rights Activists
  • PUA – Pick Up Artists
  • Traditionalists

There’s a lot of agreement among all four divisions that women have gone completely off the rails thanks in large part to social engineering and Cultural Marxism. The friction lies in what each group thinks should be done about it. MGTOWs by and large want to be left alone to do their own thing and many have given up on women. MRAs want legal action to put men on an equal footing with women in a gynocentric society. PUAs are happy gaming women and getting laid. Traditionalists want a return to the days when men and women needed each other and complimented each other rather than competed with each other. None of our ideals will be achieved if we are fighting amongst ourselves.

Our strength is there’s a lot of overlap in our ideals, and many of our solutions can compliment that overlap. This is how change is made.

Instead of allowing ourselves to be subdivided and conquered, we need to focus on what goals we share. We all want to see an end to women running society off the rails. We all want men to be treated like human beings instead of disposable meal tickets. We all want to get laid on the regular. And whether we want to admit it or not, a certain segment of society needs to be married and have kids to keep everything running and to bring up a responsible and well-balanced next generation.

Let's get together and lay out a game plan in the Culture War

Let’s get together and lay out a game plan in the Culture War

Common Goals

In short, we all realize that the current status of society is unsustainable in the long run. That’s what should bring us together. Banding together to force a change in the direction of the ship of state as it sails on towards a figurative Category Five storm for civilization should be our common goal.

The division is baffling to me sometimes. It’s like seeing an army of men being destroyed by feminism and the gynocentric state fighting over about who has the best tactics and whose ideals are more important, and continuing to get pelted rather than uniting against a common enemy.

We are all brothers fighting in a great Culture War. It behooves us to be considerate of and tolerant of each other’s points of view rather than taking a one size fits all approach with our narratives. There should be room for disagreement without us insulting and fighting each other.

We should decide what our big, common goals are, wage war against feminists and leftists to win big battles and then we can subdivide the “booty” from that victory among ourselves. Sun Tzu knew the importance of unity in his timeless work The Art of War:

If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them.

It’s the old maxim divide and conquer. The tragedy is we have already separated and are in disaccord before even entering into battle. As long as we are divided, we don’t stand a chance against the monolithic state and culturally entrenched Marxism and feminism. But if we come together and make our voices heard we can become a force to be reckoned with.

This simple African proverb sums up the best course of action for men’s communities: If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. Let’s get together and deliver a knockout blow to feminism, social engineering, and the New World Order. It’s getting late in the game and we need to get our shit together.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

« Older Entries