To those new to this blog: Blue Knights are the counterparts of White Knights; while the White Knights are busy protecting women from the outside world, the Blue Knights are busy protecting (“protecting”) children from the outside world.

One of the memes popular among Blue Knights is a question which they sarcastically put in our mouths: “but what if she consented tho?” That is, in their view, whether or not a young female consented to sexual relations is irrelevant, and we — men who support sex with young females — are retarded and autistic for even bringing up the question of consent. According to Blue Knights, it absolutely doesn’t matter “if she consented” – sex with young females is inherently victimizing to the young females, and that’s that.

An example of the meme.

They claim that AnCaps (Anarcho-Capitalists) often support the abolition of the AOC. And these Blue Knights, who are often totalitarian fascists, use this claim to attack AnCap-ism as an immoral ideology; the Blue Knights view sex with young females as victimizing, are opposed to this “victimization,” and believe that any sort of liberty that tolerates or explicitly allows for sexual relations with young females is a “bad liberty.” At root, their worldview of victimology trumps always whatever value they ostensibly attach to personal liberty.

This post of mine about the memetic origins of Puritan-Feminism is highly pertinent. According to the accounts quoted in it from Scott Alexander’s review of the book “Albion’s Seed,” the original Puritans — while they might have paid some lip service to the notion of libery — were in reality radically opposed to any significant personal liberty on the part of anyone. This Puritanical illiberalism had originated in England and came to dominate the whole globe. It is essentially characterized by the perception of people, and especially specific groups of people, as “victims” of various kinds of things; and by a corresponding desire to stamp-out all potential sources of “victimization.” That’s their psychology. And Puritans, now as then, are opposed to liberty, because they recognize that genuine liberty may allow for the “victimizing influences” to exist. That, they can’t stand – and their “anti-victimization” evangelism is a global one.

The Blue Knights adhere to the Puritan worldview, and apply it to the issue of sex supposedly being inherently victimizing to young people; likewise, White Knights adhere to the Puritan worldview, and apply it to the issue of “women hurt by men.” And Puritanism is fundamentally united with the ideology of Feminism, being two sides of the same “victimization” coin; hence we call it Puritan-Feminism or Puritanism-Feminism. The two simply cannot be separated in any meaningful way, and the only practical difference between them is that the Puritan-Feminist women are more likely to explicitly identify as “Feminists,” while the Puritan-Feminist men often identify as sundry different things rather than explicitly calling themselves “Puritans.” That’s basically the only meaningful difference between the two worldviews, and it being a semantic issue, it’s just not particularly meaningful.

Puritanism and Feminism are one and the same, and this ideology of Puritanism-Feminism is applied by different types of people to different kinds of issues, though ultimately it’s all about “victimization” being, in the view of those who adhere to this ideology, always more important than liberty. Thus, Puritanism-Feminism is absolutely illiberal. Now, we recognize that female catladies can’t stand personal liberty and never miss an opportunity to oppose it; what now has to be recognized is that Blue Knights, possessed of a Puritan-Feminist outlook, are equally averse to personal liberty, being ‘morally outraged’ and utterly intimidated by it; they are basically, in the deepest recesses of their mentality, male catladies.