Okay, so… basically I have a “ridiculously” high verbal IQ, which is how I manage to come up with all of these concepts which I come up with. But what is always important is to explain the concepts in a language that mere mortals can understand too. Neologisms ain’t worth their salt if you’re the only person who “gets it.”

Take for example the case of the colossal faggot and level-9000 autist who goes by the name of “Fidelbogen.” He is someone who has spent the last dozen years inventing new terms that, ultimately, only sound great in his own mind. Everyone else who happens to come across the terms that he has been inventing thinks to himself “wtf is this shit lol.” But the undeterred Fidel Castro is not about to stop any time soon.

Think for a sec about the word “gynonormativization,” which Fiddle has invented. Copy and paste this goofy word into your search bar and you’ll come across a real non-fake actual Fidelboring blog post from 2013. That’s what the man does, folks. That’s all he ever does in his entire blogging career.

“Gynonormativization.” Jesus Christ, man. I’m not even discussing here the validity or invalidity of the idea itself. It could be a good idea, possibly. But just like… come on m8. You’re doing it wrong. Epically.

So anyway.

What’s the difference between a Blue Knight and an Agecuck? Let me explain.

A Blue Knight is anyone who is seeks to ‘protect’ and ‘shield’ young people (often called “children”) from everything that he or she deem to be dangerous — or potentially dangerous — to young people in particular, most especially sexuality and other fun things.

Note that this does not refer to actually defending kids from, say, a real serial killer who’s aiming a real gun at them. Rather, Blue Knights are those who see normal, healthy, and even innocuous things as things that children must not be “exposed” to. Put in a different way, Blue Knights see “children” as these super-fragile entities that are bound to be victimized by any and all interaction with the scary “world of adults.”

According to what passes for Blue Knight “logic,” since older people have sex and go to work, it directly follows that younger people must not have sex and must not go to work. Otherwise they would be “robbed of their childhood” and/or “robbed of their innocence” i.e. victimized.

A Blue Knight holds in his emotional mind a romantic idea of what “childhood” is, and he (or she) sees any supposed intrusion from the adult-world into the child-world as an immoral and horrible thing done to young people.

The Blue Knight will ignore all the evidence — and there is plenty of it — that (contrary to the romantic propaganda which modern society is inundated with) a supposed “intrusion from the adult-world into the child-world” is not actually even harmful to young people at all, and is healthy for them as a matter of fact.

The Blue Knight supports infantilism and opposes the natural process of adultization aka “growing the fuck up.” It is common for a Blue Knight to lament what he (falsely) perceives as “children growing up too fast these days.” He wants social mores to go back to what they were in the 50s.

(Well, incidentally, I also want that – but I want it to be the 50s of the 11th century rather than the 20th)

A Blue Knight will summon all kinds of psychological or psychiatric or even spiritual mumbo-jumbo to explain why ‘children’ must not be allowed to engage in ‘adult’ activities and must not be exposed to ‘adult’ influences. All of these explanations will essentially boil down to some kind of a victimization narrative. A Blue Knight is not really capable of thinking about ‘children’ in non-victimological terms. At least not when sexuality is involved.

A Blue Knight perceives sexuality as inherently and necessarily victimizing to young people.

As you can see, both Blue Knightism and White Knightism (a notion with which everyone is familiar) derive from a victimization-based morality. Personally, I just call this victimization-based morality “victimology,” though you are free to suggest a better term than that.

Note that Blue Knightism is extremely common, and similarly, White Knightism is extremely common. Both types are usually proud of being what they are. And of course, there is a strong correlation between the two mindests. You will be hard-pressed to find a White Knight who isn’t also a Blue Knight or a Blue Knight who isn’t also a White Knight. Such individuals exist, but they are quite rare.

Having explained what a Blue Knight is, let’s examine and acquaint ourselves with a new term: Agecuck.

The agecuck (you don’t have to capitalize the word. Probably better that you don’t capitalize it) is a subset of and variation on the idea of the Blue Knight, and it means an individual who is specifically obsessed with ‘protecting’ people below a certain age fron this thing or from that thing. The age which he (or she) deems to be the “turning point” from requiring special protection to not requiring special protection is always chosen arbitrarily.

For example, on 4chan’s /b/ there are people who go around saying “how dare you be sexually attracted to [X], pervert? She is just 14!” and so on.

This is a specific form of Blue Knightism which I call agecuckery or agecucking. The agecuck attaches a great deal of emotional/ideological significance to whatever arbitrarily chosen age he sees as the ‘right’ threshold, and will autistically insist that things that are okay at age X+2 and even at age X+1 are absolutely horrible and monstrous and unthinkable at age X.

For example, if the agecuck thinks that sex at the age of 14 is “ZOMG HORROR!!!1!” (despite the statistical reality that plenty of 14-year-olds are passionately doing it) then he will simply not tolerate the idea that men are sexually attracted to 14-year-olds; yet he may be surprisingly tolerant of sexuality with 15 y/os and 16 y/os, as if there is such a great difference between “X” (14) and “X+2” (16).

An agecuck may put the threshold at 13 or at 20, the point is that any suggestion of sexuality (and, honestly, it’s always about sexuality) below this arbitrarily chosen age will result in the agecuck flipping-out like crazy against the person who suggested it.

“Agecuck,” moreso than “Blue Knight,” is meant as an insult. Nobody (or, to be precise, no man) wants to be called a “cuck” of any kind. It is meant to be offensive and to be aggressively used against our enemies.

It sounds a lot like “wagecuck,” an insult common on the chans. That’s probably what got me to invent this term, in fact.

You can technically substitute “agefag” for “agecuck,” but I think that “agecuck” stings much sharper, because it implies not just that you are engaging in a lame behavior (fagging) but that you are compromising on something essential from a position of weakness (cucking).

Why is an agecuck an agecuck? Because he is not red-pilled, or not red-pilled enough, about the issue of age. He is blue-pilled i.e. deluded about the subject. He lacks age-realism. That results in him cucking out on his own interests as a man. The legalization and normalization of male sexuality is in the rational self-interest of all men, but agecucks autistically insist that “oh no, at age X it is just unfathomable and unpalatable, because blah-blah-blah.” That results in us men collectively losing our sexual liberty, becoming the slaves of a sex-hostile age-centered worldview.

When one of our enemies speaks broadly about young people, he should simply be called a “Blue Knight.”

But when he starts autistically arguing that sex is horrible at age X while being perfectly acceptable at age X+1 or X+2, or that attraction to those aged X is perverted but attraction to those aged X+1 or X+2 is absolutely normal, then is the time to call him an “agecuck” and to describe the thing that he is doing as “agecucking.”

Again — to repeat the obvious — an agecuck may be fixated on any age. He could be fixated with 13 (possibly because he himself secretely desires to bang 13-year-olds) or with 15 (ditto) or with 17.

An agecuck will often use the word “underage” to describe those whom he deems to be below his arbitrarily chosen threshold for participation in sexual things. If he is obsessed with defending the AOC (which is 16 in many places) then he will rage against those who show attraction to 15-year-olds. If he is obsessed with defending anti-CP legislation, he will vociferously denounce attraction to 17-year-olds. That’s the gist of agecuckery.

What do you guys think about this meme?

My personal opinion is that it’s a strong meme with lots of potential.