The Double Blue Pill Can Be An Insidious Weapon Of Reaction

The 20th century was, in a sense, dominated by questions about “society.” The question was no longer “which system of government is best,” but rather “which one serves best the needs of society.” But beginning sometime in the 1990s, what appeared to be just another logical step began to look like a mutation. An early and myopic diagnosis of this change was that of a “culture war.” What had in fact occurred was that the “social” had metastasized.

Arguably, the “left-right paradigm” was never relevant to American society, since no European model has ever mattered much here. European ideas only appealed to the fringes of society. The wealthy New England transcendentalist aspired to prove to his relatives across the Atlantic that his “people” were capable of “culture.”

And the incorrigible misfit, sometimes disguised as a Christian pastor, latched onto socialist memes and assembled a following that was as meaningless as it was devoted. With notable exceptions like Prohibition, small groups of lunatics have racked up few victories in politics and their influence has been contained.

The roots of social justice

It’s no secret that just about any cause, no matter how bizarre, can be claimed to be a matter of “social justice.” From the faux outrage about equal pay to politically correct speech to multiplying concepts of gender identity, this lunacy continues ad infinitum. Considering historical context, it actually makes sense. Why would these crusaders keep whipping an old mare like abortion, which involves the inconvenient detour through Roe v. Wade, with all its legal arguments and jurisprudential subtleties?

What’s to be noted about social justice warriors and other would-be political “movements” is their rhetoric. They produce talking points, not arguments; buzzwords, not facts. Of course, anything can be treated as an argument, and if most social justice warrior talking points were examined on that basis, 90% are weak or fallacious.

It is to their advantage that most people have at least a smidgen of that democratic faith in reasoned debate. It means they will usually be given a forum and a sucker who will attempt to argue against their points. But as I’ve already hinted, if you try using reason against lunatics, you are outsmarting yourself. Pitting rationality against irrationality is a fool’s errand. The most effective tactic to counter the blue pill in a public forum is the double blue pill.


What is the double blue pill?

The double blue pill is merely doubling down the social justice irrationality to counter itself.

Looked at from one angle, social justice warriors are a cohesive force united by their use of the notion of “social justice.” But a closer look reveals that they are really united by less noble sentiments: resentment, envy, a lust for power coupled with incapacity.

This is a clue to why just about any cause can label itself “social justice.” The spectrum of social justice causes is a toxic, combustible mixture of irrationality, and this allows you to neutralize one cause by invoking arguments for another one.

Take old Atticus Finch, the iconic defense lawyer from To Kill a Mockingbird. The story is set in depression-era Alabama, where a young white girl and her father falsely accuse a black man of raping her. A literature teacher may include the book in his syllabus in order to advance a narrative about the evils of racism.

But now introduce the concept of “rape culture” into the discussion and you’ve turned things on their head. Atticus Finch is no longer the brave, color-blind attorney upholding the law in the face of systemic racism: he is complicit in a patriarchal society that “blames the victim.”

The knife of the double blue pill will cut very deep. Not only will double blue pilling expose the absurdity of any type of argument offered by social justice warriors, in their attempts to refute your arguments they will attack other aspects of social justice. They will eat each other. Since you really have no vested interest in the argument, the more heated it gets, the more entertained you are.



Revealing red pill status in a college classroom is a very bad idea. This may seem too obvious to bear repeating, and repeating it may sound like a lament, but the temptation to argue honestly with thoroughly dishonest people is likely to be a person’s undoing. By using the double blue pill counter to social justice advocacy, one does not set off alarm bells in the Marxist thought police.

It is also useful in the office-type environment with liberal Nazi human resources departments. Any type of action to counter you is an actual attack on social justice itself, just a different aspect of its broad coalition of victims. For the even more adventurous type, you can use the double blue pill to game liberal woman at the martini bar while they talk about the price of tea in China. The sky is the limit with the application of double blue pill.


You can wield the double blue pill as a reply to ignorant statements made in passing. For example, someone may bitch in front of you about the law in Saudi Arabia which prohibits women from driving. You can just call the person our on their “Islamophobia,” since the law makes perfect sense within the legal and religious culture of Saudi Arabia.

Or let’s say someone gives you an in-depth lecture on income inequality throughout the globe, you can say people have their own cultures and they don’t need to be influenced by some first world economist according to Kipling’s “white man’s burden.” Or you can just keep it simple. When some woman complains that you don’t hold the door open for her or offer to buy her a drink, call her a sexist dinosaur. After all, isn’t she upholding traditional gender roles and denying equality?


This is a wicked method, and that is what makes it so beautiful and so much fun. Any retaliation or retribution does not actually hurt you. And with the current climate of political correctness, any attempts to counter your arguments will get your opponent in trouble with the thought police. I would like to see a college dean or human resources manager write you up for espousing positions that are pro-equality.


The double blue pill is powerful weapon, but as with any powerful weapon, if the operator is incompetent, its effectiveness decreases dramatically. You must be able to present the case with a straight face convincingly so any observer will see an honest argument.

Highlighting the absurdity of the various social justice causes is the goal. This method leaves your hands clean while doing it. It also brings a level of consternation to your opponent where he realizes he cannot fight back.

Read More: A Woman’s Most Potent Weapon Is Emotional Manipulation

95 thoughts on “The Double Blue Pill Can Be An Insidious Weapon Of Reaction”

  1. Pure genius. I actually have considered using this strategy on several occasions prior to reading this article.

  2. Honest to God this is what I’ve been doing for awhile. I simply called it fighting fire with water. You literally douse them in their own stupidity.

      1. Yeah, but since you double blue pill them. You can shut them up and it reduces the fire. In technical theory.

    1. Some people are so stupid, that it is pointless to douse out their flames of stupidity. However, it is important to manage it in such a fashion that it does not cause a problem or spread. For example, talk is cheap, and with regards to false accusations/witch-hunting, hearsay is cheap too. Apparently most/all males are evil rapists who cannot control their primal urges to destroy society.
      Well, I’ve heard of one of my male friends was being raped by a female colleague (this guy was an uber-player), where he was drunk and couldn’t physically fend off her advances. He kept saying ‘…’ and eventually his brother walked in on them and dragged the girl off. Minus a few exceptions, whilst modern men are shit, modern women have become the epitome of vile-ness.
      No doubt, if he brought a case against her, he would be labelled as the rapist. Modern society is engineered to destroy morality in both genders, and particularly men, as they are hardwired to be fighters/preservers of the society they live in.

    2. yeah or it’s called the discourse within social justice groups. it’s not like they’ve never noticed these problems before you guys pointed them out. that’s how they make money: write articles on the relationship between islamophobia and sexism. you’re not harming them in any way by adding to their discussion.

  3. “What is the double blue pill?”
    Rule 4. Shove it down their throats good and hard.
    “Arguably, the “left-right paradigm” was never relevant to American
    society, since no European model has ever mattered much here. ”
    For decades now I have had to qualify my political arguments with “in an American context.” It may have reached the point where such is pointless, as so few people have any understanding of what an American context is.
    In any case, the meanings of left and right, liberal and conservative, have become twisted into the names of teams, rather than the names of cogent political philosophies.
    The Orwellian destruction of the language to the point where it isn’t even possible to form certain thoughts in order to hold an intelligent conversation is nearly complete.

    1. ‘Je Suis Charlie’
      Global communism, anyone? Why oh why would evil bankers and their brethren want to end the nation state and have a stateless entity where the divide-and-conquer could operate?

  4. I always referred to this as hanging people up on contradictions. I have done this for years.
    For example, when someone calls for gun control, I show them the history of gun control and how it was originally intended to disarm blacks and immigrants.
    But I always used this as more of a tool than a counter to SJWs.
    The reason is, when you use the tactics as described in this article, you will find out right away if you are dealing with a “party member” type or a rank and file idiot who is merely parroting the latest hashtag campaign.
    The latter will become rapidly overloaded and disengage. Going deeper than the buzzwords with these people is too much for them. They will then move to a “conditioned response”, conditioned by the Cathedral of course. “Sealioning” is a recent term. But in the case of using information counter to a blue pill that is just more blue pill, and the conditioned response it might bring, don’t be surprised if we see the term “fact rape” appear. Like “don’t give me facts to rape my point” or something.
    Thus we “we” say “hordes of zombies” to refer to the rank and file of these people, we’re not kidding.
    The former though, the people who know they are full of shit, will know exactly what they are doing and exactly what you are doing. They will disengage because they will know “we have one here who can see!” and they know they will be damaged. Their arguments are already weak, but their target is the weak-minded, not you. You see, they want to get enough weak minded people on board to see their ideals come to fruition to such extent that a day comes when people in red uniforms will haul you off for your insolence. So they don’t need to argue with YOU. They are already arguing against logic and reality and they know that the idiots outnumber everybody else.
    So they are not going to engage in an argument that they might lose.
    But it does become noticeable when they practically run away.
    Never underestimate the power of argument. People are too thick headed and egotistical to ever admit they were wrong or fooled about anything. But the power of argument, their ideas being countered every damned time, will be enough to control them. I think it’s known as “pressure”.
    This is why I think the whole survivalist/prepper thing was a mind op to get the libertarians and Nrx people to extricate themselves from society. You see if “they” were to try to round us up to make us go live in the mountains we would shoot them in the face.
    But it’s much easier to barrage us with all kinds of doomsday crap and one article after the other telling us how all is lost so we do it to ourselves and go move to a cabin somewhere.
    And the end result is that from backyard party to the factory breakroom all the way up to the corporate boardroom, when someone spews some “social(ist) justice” bullshit, there is nobody in the room to tell them how stupid they are, or make them eat their words. That person who could have been there got convinced to go live off grid somewhere.

    1. It’s funny how when you use this, sometimes women will come over to your side quickly. It;s almost like they say to themselves, “Finally, someone to call bullshit and explain all of this to me.” Then they are agreeing with everything you say.
      That’s a good point, of course, to tie them up and bang them Christian Grey style.

    2. If this internet bill passes (either way, I believe freedom of speech will be less); then those gun rights will mean everything. The British and Aussies gave up theirs – currently the government imported an extra 30 million immigrants (not the 10 million they admit to), to an island that can only support 30 million at most. As such, Britain has an enslaved populace that cannot rebel against its leaders, lacking any real alternative economy, resources, and weapons. Not to mention social atomisation due to single parenthood etc. Basically, they’re fucked, genocided by proxy by the bankers and their brethren, and the one thing that could change the tide theoretically, namely weapons, is the one thing they are not allowed to have.
      By the way, air guns and the like are now classified as weapons. Not to mention that cops can’t really protect me from the bankster scum they get paid by. Worse still, if some guy tries to attack you, if you defend yourself, you are liable. Even pepper spray used on rapists etc is a crime! I don’t give a fuck, but it makes more sense to get off this titanic-like island, as I try to tell Brits and they don’t fucking get it, the day of their genocide (in total, including other races) has come. Heck, you’d only need an economic collapse for everyone to prey on each other and genocide in this manner, on such a crowded island. The fact that the UK has a multitude of other problems makes this whole situation much worse.

    1. You summarised the article well, but I’m not sure I like the TL;DR meme in general.
      With the rapid rate at which we are heading to idiocracy, I feel like people will just sign binding contracts going with the TL;DR version. There are a lot of points to be mulled over in a well-written article, even though for most, only one point of interest may be present.
      With this in mind, I would like everyone to note the internet privacy/freedom bill being debated by Obama/FCC versus the cable corporations. Since both are owned by the super-rich, they will both end free speech, allow retroactive comments to be flagged for imprisonment/fines and lead to higher connection charges. This will prevent protests and an unfree internet will lead to tyranny in complete. This bill is being debated this month – Google it! It is literally the final nail in the coffin for a free western society, so wake up and take note! The size of the wallet of a person is indicative of the level of their control, and when the top 80 rich people in the world own the same wealth as the remaining 7.3 billion, it is time to say that we do not live in a free world. I believe that God will one day judge and save us, and I hope you do too, because otherwise it’s quite possible all of the human race is fucked considering the path we are on.

      1. Great comment. Apparently the FCC ‘improvements’ for the internet will bypass Congress and be rubber-stamped via (yet another) executive action/order. Let me know if I’ve got this wrong.
        I also do not even vaguely believe the cover stories being fronted for this control-grab. Empires and wealth corrupt men. A simple and modest life is a blessing.
        On the positive side, the truth obviously is wounding the beest. Hear it thus howling.

      2. >I believe that God will one day judge and save us…
        I’m rooting for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      1. While studying in hopes of getting into med school, I was taught something.
        Female doctors:
        -Work less hours
        -Place family above career
        -Don’t specialize in high paying high stress areas (Except OBGYN)
        -Don’t generally start their own practice
        -Usually get pregnant and married and cut their hours tremendously
        So why should she get paid the same as a heart surgeon that works 90 hour weeks?

        1. So why should she get paid the same as a heart surgeon that works 90 hour weeks?

          Because men and women should get paid the same amount for the same work.

        2. Actually. There was this sexy girl in my building on her way to med school. She kept asking me for life advice. I shoulda snagged her. She’s in her first year now.

        3. You didn’t get my point.
          If doc A works 90 hours and Doc B works 30 why should they both get the same amount at the end of the week?
          If you think having a vagina entitled you to the same pay for less work, you are part of the problem

        4. In the spirit of the article I was being double blue pill to show the absurdity of the feminist position.
          Sorry I should have prefaced my comment with a “sarcasm” warning.

        5. Taker if you want but I’d wait for the caterpillar to turn into a butterfly if you’re looking for financial security.

    2. This is right from the “Agreeing with Liberals for the Wrong Reasons” school of thought, or as I like to simplify it to, “Subverted Liberalism.”

  5. On several occasions I have brought up the suicide statistics, here it’s around 400 men to 100 women a year. I put it up on Facebook that we need to have more women committing suicide to even up the statistics. Some were not amused.
    The other one is the fatalities in the workplace, 90% of fatalities are men, “in the name of equality we need to have more women dying in the workplace!” Watch the hamster explode on its wheel….

    1. More good people will die before the female hamster goes kaput.
      Its important to note that manginas/white knights and other ‘victim’ groups have a massive master too, though women have the biggest one.

      1. YES. This stuff isn’t ending in our lifetime. The more that these identity groups are rewarded (feminists, blacks, illegals. gays) the more insane their viewpoints will become to maintain lucrative victimhood. It’s only beginning.

    2. they claim veterans off themselves at an astonishing rate of 22 PER DAY.
      And you know 21 of the 22 are men.

    3. or how about striving for less dead men instead of more dead women so everybody wins? this shows how “red pill” and feminism are both inherently destructive.

  6. I love this method, and use it often. But be prepared – the retards who are most thoroughly schooled in social justice have an endless capacity to hamsterize inconsistent positions. You have to understand that you won’t help these people to see their own idiocy. You will only help a more rational third party to take the red pill while amusing yourself in the process.

    1. Since they cannot be turned, the goals are first, to reveal them for what they are, and second, to push them back into the underground ghettos the CHUDs crawled out of in the first place.

    2. I sometimes wonder if they are schooled into presenting these inconsistent positions, as part of their work for a moneyed interest. Most of the MSM articles are by the same authors, promoting all sorts of idiocy and degeneracy. The problem is that such articles are supposed to confuse, to lead to an unstable society where confusion reigns – such a society is easier to control. Consider for example, studies that based on science, say one thing one year; and then ten years later say the opposite. It’s all based on science, but not the objective kind – it’s all based on social science (for control over populations).

      1. Most of social science is complete garbage – take it from someone who has a degree in it.

        1. I loved my Sociology class. It was basically my time to just look at people and criticize how stupid they are for a grade.
          I wish I could get paid for it.

    3. Yeah, they may come back with “oppressing women isn’t a policy of Islam” or “the inequality was foistered upon them by European colonization and theft.”

    1. that ‘questions for men’ thread looks like an awful lot of women complaining about what they THINK is happening, without any sort of evidence.

  7. Why recognize ANY differences at all? They serve absolutely no purpose in this day and age. Would you segregate athletic competition by race? Why are the sexes segregated in the Oscars? And where do the transgendered fit in at the Emmys? Why should I be denied admission to a womyn’s college simply because I happen to identify as a man?

    1. that’s a good one…. we should instigate mass applications to women only schools and colleges and write to the media about all the rejected applications….. hahahha

    2. Co-ed sports – no woman gets drafted, ever, except by some faggot ass team, and they lose because they’re wasting a roster spot
      co-ed oscars – men are better actors, period. name one good actress out right now. as in talent, not looks.

      1. This is incorrect. Women by nature are more emotional, therefore they are able to master and portray emotions better. I learned this from a Maser teacher, who was incredibly masculine himself.

  8. As I keep saying, progressivism collects society’s misfits, losers, scolds, cranks and other dysfunctionals with conflicting grievances and agendas. No surprise that these people would eventually turn on each other, like how the feminists have started a war with the transgender mistakes of nature who want to become pretend-women.

  9. As a non-binary, self-identified non-cisgendered, trans aware person of unclassified color, I find that applications, insurance forms, DMV …etc. are limiting the scope of my identity. I can not, in good conscience apply a checkmark next to my gender and racial background , and refuse to do so. I have an attorney on retainer ready to go.

  10. If you want to watch the head of a SJW blow up ask them this simple question – “if one man, one woman marriage is unconstitutional, how is banning polygamy any different?” Even the most article SJW will stumble through a half a$$ed answer.

    1. It really shouldn’t be illegal. What people do (consenting adults) is their business in their own home. Some guy wants two wives (God, why? One nagging twunt isn’t enough?) let him if they are adults and agree. No skin off my nose.
      As soon as you start dragging minors into the mix, then it gets legal eagle time. Why? We say minors are unable to enter into contracts, and marriage is a contract.

  11. Why would you even argue with them. Firstly, arguing with anyone is a complete waste of time. Secondly, These people so deluded that arguing with them will literally be like playing chess with a pigeon. You can have the most sound strategy in the world but all the pigeon is going to do is knock over the pieces shit on the board and then strut around like its victorious. If you want to fight these people you do it the way they have been fighting us. You go after their livelihood. Capture all their bullshit and present it in a way that is irrefutable to the fact that they are terrible people. If enough people start doing this pretty soon public opinion is going to be turned around and no one will sanction their lies anymore. After this happens they will soon find themselves out of a job. Then, since none of them produce anything of actual value, they will all starve to death on the streets like the filth they are. Problem solved.

    1. “Firstly, arguing with anyone is a complete waste of time.”
      I would amend this. Arguing with someone with the expectation you are going to change THEIR mind is a waste of time. Arguing with someone when there is an audience can be extremely useful to win people to your cause or line of reasoning.
      *forgive me for using “their” as the gender-neutral possessive pronoun. It just works rhetorically better than infusing gender into the language and is really the best option available, even if it isn’t technically grammatically correct.

      1. Well ok I can somewhat see how arguing with someone in front of an audience COULD be beneficial. Except in todays gynocentric society the very concept of a man arguing with a woman about anything is absolutely unacceptable. Even SJWs get bitchy when beta men pull “rank” and say something out of place even if its in DEFENSE of their own corrupt ideology. Logic and reason aren’t going to work on people who don’t think with logic and reason. And the whole double blue pill stuff is just countering bullshit with more bullshit. The majority of people out there are fucking dipshits who only think with their feelz Appealing to them as an audience about this shit will be about as effective as trying to herd cats. So that only leaves one option. Take der monies!! Show the people that pay them what shitty human beings SJWs are and let the rest sort itself out. Since bitches love spending money on shit they don’t need if you knock their income even just a little bit they’ll fall behind on their massive debts and eventually be crushed under it. A homeless starving SJW doesn’t have time to bitch about “social inequality” or “manspreading” when they don’t know where their next meal will come from.
        …and if you think thats cruel know that they would do it you in a heartbeat if they knew what a horrible thought criminal you were. And I also don’t care how you use the word “their”

        1. Agree about the first point. Admittedly skimmed most of your post.
          It’s best not to argue with people for a variety of reasons. The problem, though, is that men haven’t argued for a long time about this stuff and now we have a serious cultural problem on our hands because the extreme, clearly insane side of blue pill mentality is given free reign. Men need to step out a little bit to keep this under control. It has gotten to the point of a potential existential threat.
          There are stances you can take where you risk people not talking to you or not getting invited to certain get togethers without risking your professional reputation / ability to draw an income. You do have to be careful, but you don’t have to be complicit with something you know to be insanity. Reach out to guys you think might have swallowed the red pill and maintain those contacts, but don’t openly discuss red pill ideology.
          I know plenty of guys who might even read these forums, but I would never ask because all I need to know is that they’ve got my back, and I’ve got theirs. No need to fill in the blanks.

  12. The double blue pill is useful but dangerous. As said, you need to use it with a straight face and in a non-hostile, non-argumentative way. Pose it as a humble question in the face of someone getting livid, and you will see their face turn red.

    1. agreed, always pose in a sincere, questioning type manner, because for one thing, it thus is not a “statement”, but a petition that the social justice creep, provide an answer–publically (coffee shop, office kitchen, etc). You also need to shape the language to the SJ Creep. If it is a white woman, I pose it as “us” initially in a non-offensive (I’m questioning myself) kinda way…then focus on HER as the offender in the important part,like this: “But don’t you think us complaining about Saudis is enforcing your upper class, white western woman’s beliefs on others who are simply “different” than you…I mean, isn’t that the whole stereotype of the entitled white woman that brown people are always talking about?” You’ll notice how much I accomplished there…transitioning from “us” to HER, assigning whiteness to her (which they HATE), and then strawmanning a meme (true or not) BACK ONTO HER, as though it’s a given and I even sympathize. I also used the liberal “people different than you” meme, because it will be hard for her to argue against..we often hear it tagged onto white men with the whole, “…simply because they look different than you” thing…so return the favor. WW have been doing this for YEARS…I give them a taste right back.

  13. Feminism fights to get women on the Front lines in the military where they would suffer horribly at the hands of the Male Taliban, Feminism fights to protect women from Men and rape Culture…Sends women it die by Men , Protects women from “evil” of Men…Double Blue Pill.

  14. Why not just tell them you don’t really care? I use to get in arguments all the time on social media sites and in person and it really got me know where. It’s basically the equivalent of an athiest and a christian arguing over the after life. If you know they are wrong then it will come back to bite them in the ass sooner or later. My response to people trying to argue my opinion on things is now “If i wanted your opinion i would have asked for it” it shuts most of them up and if they persist I go with the “I really dont care” and walk away.

  15. Logical consistency is very important to my own politics, as it can be very easily used against you if it isn’t. SJWs are subjectivists, they have no logical consistency. Milk that to the greatest extent my making more and more absurd claims based on their “reasoning”

  16. SJWs hardly need any help on this one. Just think of feminist ‘intersectionality’ – ‘check your white woman feminist privilege’ says the feminist woman of colour. Checks your black woman feminist privilege says the gay disabled feminist dwarf or whatever ….and so on so forth.
    It always ends in a bra and panty fight, but the kind of bra and panty fight nobody wants to watch. I do think modern SJW hypocrisy would be like those 1970s TV supercomputers that would self-destruct whenever they received contradictory instructions ‘cannot compute’, except SJWs don’t even try to compute, are perfectly at ease with contradiction and hypocrisy. Still bra and panty fight. Pass the sick bucket

  17. You can red pill a class, if you do it well.
    I had two leftists as social science teachers in college. The first was a great woman. A bit red pill herself, but a self-admitted liberal. She was very open to discussion, debate, and able to use facts as well as accept them. Just have your work properly annotated, and she might not agree fully, but she didn’t argue because facts are facts. Conclusions, those can be argued in some cases, but (in her mind) facts were immutable. Her opinion of the rape culture hysteria (yes, we still chat) is just that: it’s ridiculous hysteria.
    The second one, she was a fat (the other lady is not, but admits to struggling to stay thin), opinionated, patriarchy is the debbil, et al. I set my plan in motion very early in the semester. One report after another of how women are just as capable (and just as often no less) of horrific physical, mental, and sexual (even more so against children) as men. The last report I gave in class included a clip from a BBC special (Panaroma, Female Sexual Abuse of Children: The Ultimate Taboo) that left her flat out speechless. As in completely unable to retort, which she had tried to do every other time.
    One blue pill guy in the class, of many no doubt, said to me: “You really hate women, don’t you?” My response was simple and to the point: “I grew up down the street from a kid who was beaten to death by his mother. His dad tried everything, even ending up in jail for ‘custodial interference’, trying to protect him. The courts always gave the kid back to mom. I don’t think women are anymore evil than men, but some people think that men are more evil than women. They’re wrong.”

    1. Munchausen’s syndrome ( factitious disorders) and Munchausen’s by Proxy are seen nearly exclusively by women….

  18. Another example is the “rape crisis”. The solutions put forth by a couple of US states result in circling back to the Victorian Era. Ironic.

  19. Yep, been privately employing this method for years (as a Red Pill Muslim myself). The funniest is moment is when the SJCreep doesn’t know WHICH “opinion” to take, which is more PC, or “safe”, the key is to NEVER stop with the ambiguity of the Double BP.

  20. Btw, the first publically Double BP’d, was Denise Brown, sister of Nichole Brown Simpson. That entire case pitted “women’s rights/rape culture/DV, etc etc” against a “wronged black man” paradigm–even though pretty much everyone knows he did it. Feminists, versus Race Warriors. Denise Brown was drop kicked by a public, at that time, more interested in fighting an image of violent black men…and after years of doing it “for the children” (her niece and nephew), in another Double BP moment, they (being black, like their father) dumped her too, when they were legally old enough to get away from her harping on about their dad. She was and remains a tragic figure in a sense, because you can tell she sincerely was destroyed by losing her sister.

      1. “there may be male jews but there are no jew men”
        You just don’t know the right Jews…

  21. “To Kill a Mockingbird” has turned into the Duke Rape Hoax; where a felon, stripper, whore, nigger gets the District Attorney , Greta Van Sustren and the entire nation riled up to lynch 3 promising students with no more evidence than her word that “They done raped ma poosy and ma mouff and ma assho’ ” No other evidence was needed. We say the same thing when 60 year old jew, Kruss Swan supposedly raped a 30 year old jungle savage in ‘da mouff’.
    It seems that the more bizarre the rape hoax, the quicker SJWs are to believe it.

  22. My double blue pill:
    “H1Bs are the theft of Asia’s greatest minds by the corporate, imperialist CEOverlords”.
    I used to state my honest opinion that H1Bs are imported to depreciate American labor but the SJW scum seemed to revel in it.

  23. For anyone dating a Latina, Asia, African or any non-Anglo girl, always be on guard for the shaming from a white girl and go HEAVY, LOUD and RELENTLESS into a very public accusation of racism. I mean LOUD and hostile. Shield your girl like the SJW white asshole was threatening your Asian girl with violence. Needless to say, the SJW will have a minimum of 80 pounds on your girl. Call the cops, call the SJW a Nazi and try to get the press involved. “RACIST, RACIST, RACIST!” Because that’s what it is. You can even fuck it up even more by claiming to the press that you self-identify as a pansexual and so does your Korean GF. Oh well that gets confusing. Who cares? Throw their own shit right back at them, just like the article says. Fight fire with gas.

  24. I’m not sure about this. Hypocrisy is ingrained in leftist thought. There’s always a way for an equalist to weasel out of her own standards, hence “Only women/minorities can be oppressed/meaningfully hateful”.
    This strategy makes the assumption that equality is a logical and consistent ideology, when it is in fact, used mostly as a rationalization for self-interests and emotions.

  25. I’ve had a double blue pill on gun control for a while. Lefties argue that only the police and the military should possess firearms – the usual “militia” misinterpretation of the second amendment. But when asked if they trust the police or the military, you get a rousing “Hell no! They’re all racist pigs and warmongering baby-killers!” So WHO do you trust to be the ones to own guns, again..?

  26. Though I am one to agree with using this weapon, on the basis that justification is easily found, do we not advocate that we, as followers of logic, reason and greater good, would want to rise above the shame tactics of the far left? Though they may help win one small proxy battle, my feeling is that this would be negative in the long term.
    In its current form, as discussed in the article, I would argue that it is negative, but not without merit. How far that merit goes… Well, this is something I will ponder.

  27. This doesn’t work with women. Seriously, go try it.
    I told a girl that I pay half for meals and would fully expect her help me out physically as much as I help her. Why? Cause we are equal.
    Well let me tell you. They are 100% okay with claiming your superiority and saying you are OBLIGATED to do more because you are a man. Only when they benefit though.
    This may be fun once in a while, but seriously, it won’t work on women. THEY DON’T USE LOGIC REMEMBER?

  28. there are problems within the realm of “rape culture” and racism/sexism and islamophobia/ etc.? You mean things INTERSECT ? Oh wow, thanks you pointed this out, I mean social justice activists would have never noticed this without you. They must be so confused and angry when you mention this. Great strategy! It’s not like that’s exactly the stuff their scientific journals are made of….

  29. I had been thinking of this for athe past few weeks but never came up with a name for it. I’m assuming this works especially well if you are a woman/minority?

  30. Accelerationism is dangerous because people are foolish enough to believe it and it will make them crazier. It’s too late for this

Comments are closed.