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

Send this to a friend