The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Analysis posted Dec 06 2008, 5:29 AM Category: Commentary Source: InformationLiberation Print

Sexual brainwashing: The elimination of the sexes

Chris | InformationLiberation

[Note: I no longer believe this anymore, my mind was filled with socialist brainwashing and my thoughts have done almost a complete 180. I am an anarchist libertarian now and I realize now this was nothing more than a statement of personal preference, a preference which I no longer particularly hold. People should be free to do whatever they want, regardless of what other people think. For example, I genuinely see nothing wrong with plastic surgery. If someone wishes to improve their look, good for them, I wrongly had some fetish for nature and didn't realize the natural world is not in touch with humanity and the "artificial" world is because it's a world created by humans for humans, not just by nature or random chance. I still think there is some truth to what I say in the beginning, namely the brainwashing to act like the opposite sex, but the rest of this is just regurgitated nonsense put into my brain by anti-capitalist marketing critiques by leftist intellectuals. I apologize to anyone who was offended by what I wrote in this article, I am in no way the person I was in 2008 and this is not representative of what I believe in. I also renounce the copyright notice to this article, which I also no longer believe in. If you want to read about my transition to anarcho-capitalism and a lover of all things personal choice, please see this article. - Chris, InfoLib, 2011]

In our society, men are made to be women and women are made to be men. Let me repeat that: In our society, men are made to be women and women are made to be men.

We are brainwashed with a million varieties of "Queer eye for the straight guy," where homosexual men tell heterosexual men they need to primp themselves and "get in touch with their feminine side." Men need to cut their hair short, shave their facial hair, shave their chests and body hair etc. They even say men should wear make-up and other ridiculous nonsense. This is all supposedly because women find this attractive.

Forgive me for asking, but since when did homosexual males become the sole arbiter for what women find attractive?

Is this really what women find attractive, or is this what homosexual men find attractive? I've never known a self-respecting woman who truly cared about a man's looks, the most they say is they like it if a man cares somewhat about his appearance, but even if the man didn't care at all it would never be a deal breaker. Intelligent women judge a man by their character, their "emotional content" for lack of a better word. I realize this is generalizing to a degree, but in general this is the reality.

Now, obviously these shows are totally fake, the so-called reality shows are the phoniest and most blatantly scripted of all TV, but the image they create is real. TV and advertising are all about "perception management," people emulate what they see on TV. The image of homosexual men being the peak of health and sole arbiter of women's desires is a common one.

It's the same thing in reverse for women. Women are brainwashed to be "powerful," "independent," and so on. Women are told to cut their hair short, wear tons of make-up, get plastic surgery, dress provocatively, use sex as a commodity, etc. Billions of dollars a year is spent to market the idea that men find this attractive.

I am a healthy, young, intelligent, male. I find none of these things attractive.

Short hair is manly, I do not like it. Anything beyond the lightest of make-up adds nothing, it only subtracts. So-called blemishes are attractive, do you want a real woman or a fake image? Regardless, the make-up itself ruins women's skin, its usage becomes a self-reinforcing loop requiring more and more as their skin gets worse and worse. A good business model maybe, but a nightmare for the woman herself.

Plastic surgery is nothing more than a tribal butchering, there is no such thing as a "successful" plastic surgery. If it's done to correct a deformity that's one thing, for example victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if they truly want it, it can be a good thing. If it's done sheerly for cosmetics though, it is never a good thing. The so-called perceived demand for women to get plastic surgery is only a product of perception management, a man who did not find a woman attractive pre-surgery, will not find the woman attractive post-surgery.

Using sex as a commodity is dehumanizing, it's psychological prostitution, and it goes hand in hand with the whole idea to "be a powerful, strong, independent, woman." I can't think of anything that is a worse "turn-off" than a woman who acts like a man. It supersedes all the other things I've listed, it's the worst of the worst. If it is present, nothing else matters, there will be, and cannot be, any attraction at all. Think about it, why would a man be attracted to another man? This is not queer eye!

That said, just as "feMALEness" is the most unattractive thing in the world, the opposite is the most attractive thing in the world. To put it in a word ~*girlyness!*~ Awww, just saying it makes me giggle and blush and feel all warm inside! If a girl is, *gasp* "girly" it too can supersede even the shortest hair and the heaviest make-up! Any negative traits are erased by it's archetypal power, it is single-handedly the greatest trait a woman can have.

Now, go back and take a look at the archetypes which are shown on TV. The images of the so-called attractive women are all manly, and the images of the so-called attractive men are all womanly. This perception is at the root of what creates the mass frustration suffered by the world, when perception meets reality people will be free.

(c) InformationLiberation

Latest Commentary
- Let's Talk About...The Plague
- With Mass Shootings, The State Makes Us Less Safe
- Good News: 27% Of Americans Say Government Is Their 'Enemy,' Not Their 'Friend'
- Fear Is The Name of The Game
- This Thanksgiving, Let's Say 'No Thanks' to The Tyranny of The American Police State
- Donald Trump's Presidential "Heel Turn"
- Katniss Vs. Power: The Lessons of Hunger Games
- Tracking ISIS to DC's Doorsteps

Comments 21 - 40 of 57 Add Comment < Page of 3 >

Posted: Dec 08 2008, 10:16 PM

"...I definitely don't see many straight men who are being pressured to primp themselves like women."

Oh, you have no idea. I can't tell you how many useless male grooming products have been pitched my way via television. And Facebook keeps giving me ads for a gay dating network even though I like women.

"And I don't see what's wrong with women wanting to be independent or powerful."

I figured that Chris was referring to misandry or to women trying to overpower men in an unjustified manner. I, too, have nothing against gender equity. I think we'd be better off with the complete human population driving the workforce or partaking in some other constructive or productive venue.

Posted: Dec 08 2008, 10:53 PM

71184 Are you really that scared and impressionistically fragile? I agree and disagree with this article. First Queer Eye for the Straight guy is a great show that truly transforms straight guys in a most correct way that appeals to themselves and those closest to them, so I disagree with this . I do agree that we have become a bit plastic and artificial and quite obsessed with our looks a little too much. We need to find that perfect balance to even us out more. Sometimes we can use and be open to some help. On the other hand we have become a bit too dependent as a nation on help and we have forgotten self responsibility.

Posted: Dec 08 2008, 10:59 PM

71184 You cut off Mel Gibson's skirt!!! WHY???

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 2:29 AM

With everything I say there is a duality, there's a saying the opposite of a great truth is also another great truth. I am not against confidence or self-empowerment, I am against the abhorrent twisting of these traits into fake consumerist tools for social and mental control, which turns these normally good traits into bad ones because they are completely fake, phony, and the opposite of what they claim to be. It forces people to constantly be on defense when stating anything which is a rather simple truth, because the pressure from being misinterpreted is very high and these misunderstandings can really make people detest you. This is another product of the system (by design) though and it unfortunately has to be dealt with regardless of the consequences.

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 9:23 AM

"With everything I say there is a duality"

this is our programming. it is not natural. from before birth, we are traumatized, repeatedly, until we split. divisions start in the head. good/bad, male/female, liberal/conservative all the dualist stereotypes one can come up with, it's taught to us, indoctrinated into the very fabric of our lives.

chris, if you feel, deep down inside, that you are a manly man, good for you! that's fabulous. and if you are most attractive to girly girls, even better. but not everyone feels the same. and the girly men shouldn't be ashamed of finding manly girls attractive, if that is their nature to do so.

homosexuality is not a disease, nor is it a mutation. it is not something anyone should be made to feel ashamed of. likewise, the opposite applies as well. shame hides truth, this in my opinion, can never be a good thing. why should anyone feel ashamed of and try to hide from others who they really are? what good will ever come of that?

using stereotypes and shame to make people fit in with the group, i don't care what group it is, or what the stereotypes are that divide that group from all the rest, it is still division. this is how we are conquered, this is how we are ruled and governed. this is why we are still not free. all those groups, fighting amongst themselves is what prevents each individual person choosing to stand up, in their own power, for freedom.
I am Anonymous only

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 10:24 AM

72159 Yo, Chris, just want to say that I agree with you completely.

Our "for profit" society has been cramming ideas down our throats that completely defy human nature. All in the name of PROFIT. I find that all the bickering about what sex does this or does that and how and who and why a fucking crock of shit. Its a brainwashing exercise by the rich and powerful to subvert the masses into fighting amongst themselves while ignoring the true causes of their frustrations and unhappiness. In every feminist or chauvinist I've ever met or seen, I see nothing but a weak insecure person who is currently incapable of loving or caring for themselves so they must exact their revenge upon others. I always though that it is completely natural for people to varying balances in feminine and masculine nature. However, as we've recently discovered, chemicals have led to the feminization of the male, which may be a large part of the problem. But the real source of our psychological problem as a society lies in our inability to accept that not everything is black and white. Not everyone is male or female. And we cannot waste our time trying to define such stark contrasts when there are so many people in between. No doubt many people, including myself until recently, had not even heard of "inter sexed" people, who are of varying ratios of male and female physical sexuality. I read some of their stories, about how they were always pushed by doctors, parents, and society into trying to become either male or female. Some could and others could not. Then I understood the source of the problem. We must stop this ignorant tirade of labelling people male and female. We must understand that we are all part of our species regardless of scientific gender definitions. We must begin to see each other as human. Not male or female, not black or white... but human with intricately connected bonds, that if broken... will destroy us all.

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 10:33 AM

Thanks Stacy, I hope I wasn't advancing any stereotypes or shaming anyone as that was not at all my intent (though it doesn't seem like you were saying I was). When I said there is a duality to everything I don't mean it as splitting things apart. I am saying it more in the sense just because this is true does not mean the opposite isn't true as well. Like with this article the brainwashing is a reality but on top of that there is a brave new world homogenization of the sexes through chemical means as is covered in films like "The Disappearing Male," so to an extent what I wrote here is true but to an extent it's not "entirely" true as well, it is not all encompassing so that sort of duality still exists.

I should say I don't feel deep down I am a "manly" man who likes "girly" girls, my feelings are beyond language, I am just forced for the sake of communication to use the words I feel fit the feeling as best as I can choose. These are words which are certainly inadequate to express exactly how I feel. These are also words which are very emotionally charged and have an extremely wide range of meaning. I am forced to use these words for the sake of communication though, everyone is, I think there just needs to be a general consensus that what someone says needs to be taken as is without it necessarily being connected to everything which opposes it, it needs to be taken in a sort of vacuum first before it is interspersed and mixed with anything else.

Hopefully that made sense! ;)

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 10:39 AM

Thanks for that Anon, really great post and I agree completely with the sentiment of not over defining and just taking things as is, it's funny too because people would probably assume what you are saying is the opposite of what I wrote in the article, but really both are true (it's extremely dualistic). I should say I had not read your post before my last one, so that should show what level were on! ;)
Anonymous... in theo

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 11:17 AM

72159 Actually my name should read "I am Anonymous only in theory" but that last part got chopped off...

It is correct that what you are saying and what I am saying are one in the same in many ways. But after reviewing my own comment I see there is nothing of the strong feelings I have for the defense of masculinity and femininity.... it was an attack on the the strict genderization (is that a word?) of the sexes into something that they may or may not be. I am all for the masculine male and the feminine female, but the "for profit" society that continuously floods the mind with distortions of these images, simply for profit. It aggravates me when I see these distortions that try to tempt people into being something other than what they are. Masculine males are just that and don't need any feminization to make them more attractive mates, just as feminine females are just that and don't need any masculinization to make them more attractive mates. And yet the system continues to attempt to indoctrinate us into its web of confusion.

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 1:13 PM

134198 Kudos for engaging a discussion regarding gender relations.

I must say, though, that there is a very big problem with your assessment of current trends in gender. First of all, gender is different from sex. "Sex" refers to ones reproductive organs, while gender refers to social constructions primarily conceived in a dichotomous manner ie "masculine" and "feminine". When one says "men are made to be women and women are made to be men," the assumption is made that these socially enforced gender identities are natural. In other words, "men are naturally masculine, while women are naturally feminine." One major problem with this is that the traits and characteristics that constitute these opposing identities are psychological and performative. They are cultural standards of behavior and appearance that dictate gender, not biology. To say that "men are made to be women and women are made to be men" limits our understanding of the human experience. Perhaps "limits" is incorrect...maybe "marginalizes" or "convolutes" or "falsifies" would be better. The argument you present is somewhat analogous to the argument against sexually contextual athletic standards for physical achievement in the military. Most research supports the idea that, on average, men have more physical upper-body strength than women. Logically, upper-body exercises involving weight resistance would, generally, allow for more success from men than from women. When people say that having different standards is sexist, and that a soldier is a soldier is a soldier, they say that a soldier is only one thing. Namely, that the soldier is a man, which disregards contributions that women can make to the institution in areas besides push-ups and pull-ups -- like pulling a trigger (I've heard this is rather important in this line of work). By breaking down the gender roles, we maximize the potentiality of each person. By (re)enforcing them, we marginalize every member of society.


Posted: Dec 09 2008, 2:13 PM

71184 Our founding fathers dressed pretty girly.

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 4:54 PM

198108 Although I find this article filled with blatant sexism and heterosexism I can say that I agree with some of your more solid points.

Society does project a certain standard that men and women are meant to follow, in terms of beauty. More often than not it is portrayed in the media. Shows like "Queer-Eye" and "America's Next Top Model" put men and women into standards that make them feel like they are "not enough," that women are not "beautiful enough" or "thin enough". That is what irritates me. Women are told to be pretty, "get the guy with your looks, not your brains". You do illustrate an interesting point, plastic surgery is mutilation. Mutilation of: genitals, breasts, face...etc. So is the act of piercing for knowingly keep your body from properly healing. It is unnatural. High-heels are another beauty standard that is unhealthy, they destroy your body if worn too much. Don't get me started on hair removal.

I would like to make one thing clear, you do not seem to understand the difference between sex and gender. Gender is the product of society. Sex is what you are born with. We are not turning, as a culture, toward the removal of gender (as you seem to argue). Instead we are reinforcing it. Even though more women are working out of the home they are told to be feminine and girly, to wear high-heels, to be masculine, to be aggressive, the same goes for men; it is a constant barrage of conflicting ideals. Instead of offering a solution to this apparent problem you seem to be reflecting this ideal in your argument that short hair is masculine while too much makeup is too feminine.

Society is formed through hierarchy, and by telling a person that they are the "other", the "unnatural", the "imperfect", it makes the oppressor "look good." I say hierarchy rather than patriarchy (like some feminists would argue) due to the many levels of oppression (sexism, heterosexism, racism, ageism, ableism, classism...etc) that affect all genders and classes. The media definitely has fun with that is the ultimate of oppressors.

That being said, I agree with your notion that using sex to sell a product is in effect pornography and is dehumanizing (and kind of creepy in some cases). However, I do not think that it is the product of women being "strong and independent". It is the reinforcement and product of the hierarchical system mentioned above. It is also rather impractical to sell a product with sex when the product itself is not a sex object. This system objectifies women, and in rarer instances, men.

Gender is the product and sex is used to sell it, which is unfortunate.

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 5:59 PM

Praetorian, I do think masculine and feminine traits are natural and innate, I do not think they are "formed" by society, only "deformed" by society. I am against the deformation and pro what is innate. Also I do not think women should be in the military, I don't think anyone should be in the military.

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 6:24 PM

Anita, I think gender and sex are relatively one and the same, I don't see why the terms need to be redefined, it's a form of newspeak in my humble opinion. "Sexism, heterosexism, racism, ageism, ableism, classism...etc" I am against the usage of all these isms. I think it is overclassificationism. I think the drive to define everything perfectly is an unnatural one. Certain things need to be taken as is, I hope this doesn't make me an oppressor! ;)

Posted: Dec 09 2008, 6:30 PM

I write to a large extent in very general terms, I am trying to express certain very basic truths, feelings, etc. If I was to define every word and my exact meaning in each and every thing I said, I couldn't write anything. Like I said in a previous post there needs to be a general consensus that writings like these are to be taken as is in a vacuum before being applied to the outside world of definitions and so on. To put it another way: the filter in the mind must be temporarily released.

Posted: Dec 10 2008, 2:41 AM

202180 Chris,

You might like to Google for the article "New Order Of the Barbarians". It correlates to the apparent deliberate de-feminisation of woman.

I also agree with the way woman are often confused about what men find attractive. Girls - Tattoos are ghastly self-vandalism, overt sexual displays get our curious attention, but not our interest as a girlfriend prospect (in itself), and it certainly cheapens the woman and the image of her sexuality.

And guys - If a girl says she's impressed by your "crudentials" -or gives off that impression- she's probably only saying so to express her attraction for you, and that attraction probably has little or nothing to do with your crudentials in themselves...well, unless she's seriously dizzy. Indeed, a lack of "peacock behaviour" can show natural self-confidence, which is actually much more attractive....than your BMW...or whatever.

The simple truth

Posted: Dec 10 2008, 4:56 AM

202180 Men are from Mars and woman are for his penis.
paul from australia

Posted: Dec 10 2008, 7:35 AM

60242 hooray for chris.
i cant believe theres someone out there who shares my views EXACTLY. ive spoken the very same sentences a million times and absolutely nobody would totally agree. im only 33 but have always felt like 73. even much older people disagree with many areas, stating that youve got to change with the times .bullshit. a woman is a GIRL only older. girls were soft and feminine. they would cry if someone yelled at them. todays girls will tell you to get fcked. they are image obsessed, aggressive and sexually forward. how can you love someone who is so independant, domineering, confident and hostile. women like this dont NEED a man even if the want one.natural is attractive,vulnerability is attractive, hard working is attractive,caring for your family is attractive. snap out it , people ! stop watching tv and magazines. stop playing with ur phones and games and gadgets and get in touch with nature and real humans.
im not sure if theres a grand plan in place or whos behind it, but im resisting. i dont want my children infected with this crap. parents, start taking a greater role in the education and upbringing of your children. i could go on and on, but i will leave it to you chris to keep up the good work

Posted: Dec 11 2008, 3:16 PM

Social norms are defined and redifined as a means of maintaining control and through the eugenics weaponry to eliminate survival of those who are not aligned to the agenda of meglomanics. History, even the official version records in all too vivid detail the savage damage to mankind as a whole from the controls that are excercised and tolerated. I have seen some of the real results of what eugenics really is about and as a consequence conclude eugenics is meglomania.

History records Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton (1822-1911) as a man who in 1883 coined the term Eugenics based on the Greek stem meaning “good in birth”. In the states Charles Davenport (1866-1944) armed with a $10 million endowment from Carnegie Institution he contributed to eugenics work and removal of populations in east Germany. To deal with ‘innate eroticism’ he advocated eugenic castrations.

Historian Daniel Kevles noted that “eugenicists identified human worth with the qualities they presumed themselves to possess – the sort that facilitated passage through schools, universities and professional training.”

Notable champions of the eugenics movement include Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, Alexander Graham Bell, John Maynard Keynes, Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.

Posted: Dec 11 2008, 3:24 PM

The US eugenics program of forced sterilization picked up momentum under the depravity courtesy of Tavistock’s Adolf Hitler and WWII, as with the crown’s US using the justification of law. Both Adolf Hitler and his relative Sir Winston Churchill escalated eugenics to the point of genocide, something currently being enacted by the crown and their NATO in Iraq.

The over eugenics programs were based on intentional logical fallacies (disguised lies) and WWII served to bring public attention to the warped minds that operated both in and behind the public face of power.

The eugenics programs continue as ever in secret, sometimes using Britain’s National Health Service which was set up for the purpose. Very often the processes involved in healing and therapy turned backwards enhance abilities to control or annihilate the public.
Comments 21 - 40 of 57 < Page of 3 >

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

Donald Sutherland Reveals The Real Meaning Of The Hunger Games - 11/27Drone Pilots Have Bank Accounts and Credit Cards Frozen by Feds For Exposing US Murder - 11/27Pot Breathalyzers: Coming Soon to A Drug War Near You - 11/27Georgia Sheriff Puts Up Sign Warning People Who Disagree With Him About God to Leave - 11/27City Settles After Police Chief Arrested Man For Calling Public Official A 'Liar' - 11/27World's Most 'Adorable' Drug Kingpin Is Actually The Daughter of Texas DEA Head Honcho - 11/26Bezos Beats Musk - 11/27Heroic Cops Protect Community by Raiding a Group of 90-Yo Women Playing Mahjong - 11/26

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up