Category: The Red Pill

You may recall one of the funniest episodes of Seinfeld:

George remarks to Jerry in Monk’s Café that every decision that he has ever made has been wrong, and that his life is the exact opposite of what it should be. Jerry convinces him that “if every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.” George experiments with doing the complete opposite of what he would do normally.

This is one of the things to keep in mind when discussing “Red Pill” philosophy. According to Rollo Tomassi and other students of intersexual dynamics, many of the “Blue Pill” beliefs men are taught about female behavior are so wrong that men might as well do like George Costanza and do the opposite of what we are taught.

Think about the assumptions guys are prone to make about women, based on superficial characteristics. Men are easily impressed by beauty, but I like to quote an old Johnny Rivers lyric:

Beware of pretty faces that you find.
A pretty face can hide an evil mind.

If a pretty girl wishes to deceive a guy, he’s unlikely to wise up to her deception until it’s too late. Therefore, it would behoove the young bachelor to be suspicious of any unusually attractive woman he meets. Here’s the thing: One would expect, in the normal course of human events, that the most attractive women would be off the market, so to speak, at a relatively young age, yet here she is flirting with you.

If she’s good-looking and still single, why is she single?

There must be a backstory to explain why such an attractive woman hasn’t gotten herself a man already. Something must have gone wrong.

Here’s where the “Opposite George” mentality could prove advantageous. The unusually attractive woman expects guys to make a move on her, but if you can focus your mind on a realistic assessment — she must have done something wrong, or else she wouldn’t still be single — you will adopt an attitude of cautious skepticism toward her. And another “Opposite George” insight: Be honest about the reasons for your caution.

Think about it. She’s already heard every clever pickup line in the book, so instead you just speak to her honestly. You’ve got nothing to hide — obviously, she knows you find her attractive — and you’ve probably got nothing to lose, because the chances are she’s got emotional problems that explain why all her previous relationships failed. Hooking up with her would only entangle you in her psychodrama, so if being honest means you don’t score with her, you haven’t really lost anything. In fact, ignoring her would probably be the smartest move you could make, but if you’re going to take a chance, make sure you get her backstory first.

Avoid being predictable. Think about how to be different — how to set yourself apart from other guys. Don’t be an average chump, easily deceived by any pretty girl he meets. Remember: If something seems too good to be true, it’s probably not true, nor is it actually good.

Try the Red Pill. You could be more like “Opposite George.”

David Solway on the feminist education agenda for boys:

Recently, my wife Janice posted a video in her Fiamengo File series about an Ottawa school, Brookfield High, that had launched a ManUp campaign, complete with posters targeting males as prone to evil and females as innocent victims. “Judging from the displays,” she states, “Brookfield High goes out of its way to make girls feel welcome through positive messaging; boys, in contrast, are set apart to be lectured and shamed about male evil.”

This demonization of masculinity conflicts with the reality that any boy can see with his own two eyes: The cutest girls in school are attracted to the most masculine boys, and masculine not just in terms of physical traits, but also in terms of personality traits — confidence, assertiveness, “swagger.” Here we see a problem with what Rational Male author Rollo Tomassi calls the feminine-primary social order. Every observant man knows that there is a yawning chasm between (a) what women say they value most in a man and (b) the kind of man women actually go for. Listen to what women say, and you’d think they are magnetically attracted to “sensitive” guys. Watch what women actually do, and you can see that women obviously don’t actually care about “sensitivity.” Women want men who are tall and muscular and, ceteris parabus, rich, although no amount of money is going to make a short chubby guy sexy. As for the claim that women go for “sensitive” guys, anyone with two eyes and a brain knows this is nonsense. You don’t see throngs of lovestruck college girls chasing after guys who major in sociology or English literature (unless, of course, these guys are also tall, muscular and rich). No, it’s the jocks and frat boys who get the best action on campus, and if you pay attention to the choices women make, you’ll begin to suspect that their professed preference for “sensitive” men is the exact opposite of truth. That girl who was lecturing you about your need to be more “sensitive” will, with surprising regularity, end up falling head-over-heels for some selfish creep or dimwit brute who can’t even spell the word “sensitivity.”

In the same way that individual women often say one thing and do the opposite, so also will the educational system in a feminine-primary social order give confusing and misleading messages to boys and young men about how they should behave. Boys are bombarded with anti-male messages that label masculine behavior “toxic,” but they can see with their own eyes that women prefer masculine men, even the “toxic” ones! The gangster hoodlum is seldom without female companionship and, if he’s not killed by his gang’s rivals, the 25-year-old hoodlum will probably have sired three or four offspring with various girlfriends during the intervals between his jail sentences. This is relevant to the situation at Brookfield High School that caught Janice Fiamengo’s attention because, as her husband points out, there were comments on her video from students and former students at the school: “Brookfield was a horrible school . . . The school was filled with gang members.” In other words, the boys who caused trouble at Brookfield were not the kind of boys who were likely to be reformed by posters in the hallways.

You know what a useful masculine trait is? Stoicism, particularly as manifested in the ability to maintain a tactful silence. The wise young man, when confronted by obviously false messages from school administrators, will say nothing. He will follow the rules, and avoid drawing attention to himself by openly mocking the school’s official propaganda, but he will resist the pressure to parrot these false messages. He will not become one of the castrato choirboys singing this feminist tune, but instead will silently carry on about his business, as if he doesn’t even notice the tune they’re singing.

“What’s up with Josh?” his friends may ask when they notice him sitting quietly, reading a book by Sun Tzu or Machiavelli. He is intelligent and observant, and not generally shy about expressing himself, but he knows when to keep his mouth shut, and he also knows this: When your enemy seeks to provoke you, you should refuse to be provoked. Never permit the enemy to draw you into battle on a field of his own choosing, at the time that best suits him. Your enemy would not seek to provoke you into an attack here and now, if he did not think conditions were favorable to him.

Applying the maxims of military strategy to a situation like this anti-male propaganda campaign at Brookfield High, let’s make one thing clear: Feminists knew that boys would feel insulted by these hallway posters — that was the intended purpose, to insult boys. If you study feminist rhetoric, as I have, you realize that whenever you see a woman publicly declaiming against misogyny, toxic masculinity, rape culture, etc., she knows full well that men find this rhetoric insulting. Her anti-male rant on social media is intended to provoke hostile reactions from men, to make them lash out and say stupid things she can then screen-cap and show her feminist colleagues as evidence of male inferiority.

Don’t be that guy. Never argue with a feminist. Never let yourself be provoked into a hasty reaction that will discredit you (and do nothing to persuade her she’s wrong). Learn to remain silent in the face of such deliberate provocations, especially in any situation where your response could be used as a weapon against you. Because feminists now exercise hegemonic authority in our educational institutions, you can never hope to “win” an argument with a feminist on campus. Therefore, you should instead strive to avoid feminists on campus and, if you cannot completely ignore them, practice silent observation. If you’re in class and the discussion turns to some topic (e.g., abortion) where feminists feel obliged to comment, do not participate in the discussion, but watch and listen, making a mental checklist of your female classmates who are most vocal in expressing feminist ideology. These are women to be avoided. Never speak to feminists. Never associate with them. Ostracize them and advise your trusted friends to avoid them as well.

Feminism is a sort of incurable mental virus, causing women to develop a destructive rage toward males. Any woman exhibiting symptoms of this disorder should be socially quarantined. The young man who thinks it safe to interact with feminists, who believes they can be persuaded by rational argument, will become a target of destruction.