A moral theory of game

Game is a tool for all men, not for one type of man. It is a tool to get a specific man’s desired results, not to produce the exact same outcome for every man who employs it. For an Athol, Vox, or Prime, becoming Roissy is opposite the desired result. For a Talleyrand, becoming Eumaios is the opposite. Nevertheless, the considerable overlap between strategies and goals lands all of the aforementioned in the same intellectual sphere.


This quote from Ulysses is a perfect place from which to begin a discussion of the morality of game. Game, as a tool, is inherently devoid of morality. A hammer can be used to build a house or to kill someone. Similarly, game can be used for moral or immoral purposes.

(I don’t want to discuss whether or not game exists or works. Only an idiot thinks it doesn’t work and I have nothing to say to idiots. Read any book or watch any movie from before the mid-60s and it’s clear that everyone understands game. Some entire movies are only about struggles between alphas and betas. Some are about struggles between alphas. Even some new shows display relationships solely through the alpha/beta lens. Denying the efficacy of game would make these movies – let alone entire genres of literature – nonsensical. The idea that game doesn’t work or doesn’t exist is so dumb that only two groups of people can believe it. Group 1) is Academics and group 2) is victims of game’s success who don’t want to admit how stupid they’ve been – everyone knows stories of girls falling for the wrong guy and yet so many girls continue to do so.)

Ulysses’ quote notes two subgroups within the game-blogosphere. Let’s limit the discussion to the first division. On the one hand we have Athol, Vox and Prime. On the other hand we have Roissy. I agree that these writers are in the same intellectual sphere. They are united by the common belief that civilization is threatened by the problem discussed at length here. In short, the problem is that female sexuality has been totally freed. Freeing female sexuality is a problem, since men are not nearly as discerning when it comes to sexual partners and because women have children. When women’s sexuality is freed, hypergamy ensues and the end is nigh. Sexual roles revert to uncivilized ones.

Thus, we live in a society in which alpha characteristics are rewarded and beta characteristics are punished – in short women are not marrying as early and often. Before they are marrying, they’re sleeping with a lot more guys, alpha guys. I think this is what Mr Auster missed in his discussions on game – these conditions exist, whether we like it or not.

As men, we have two alternatives, two ways to use game. 1) Become unabashed alphas and bag as many chicks as possible – fiddle as western civilization burns. 2) Do our best to create a little slice of Victorian (or 1950s, if you prefer) lifestyle – this strategy can be seen a consistent with Arnold Kling’s strategy of fighting the growth of the state.

1) is the immoral option. One could argue that it is moral, if one believes that civilization is past the point of no return. If that is true, then the moral thing to do might be to hasten the decline so that civilization can be rebuilt sooner. I don’t find this argument persuasive, since I think the horror associated with the end of civilization is not to be underestimated.

2) is the moral option. One does not have to believe that the chances of success are high. I have pursued option 2) (I’m 29 and I’ve been married almost 5 years), but I don’t have high hopes for success of a beta revolution. Hopefully, I’ll be wrong. I have to note that the actual practice of game, as taught by the two groups Ulysses mentions is different. What works in a long-term relationship is different then what works at a bar. Compare and contrast Athol and Roissy – many of the principles are the same, but the practices can be very different.

It’s worth pausing here to comment on the Austerian objection that one doesn’t need game to pursue strategy 2). Many commenters at Auster’s site in response to the points made by the proponents of game said something like "the boys talking about game should just grow up and become men." This idea would be fine, except that the majority of boys growing up today have no men in their lives. I’m using "men" here in a very strict way. Our fathers have been cowed by feminism. Manly role models have been taken off TV and out of movies – John Wayne died two years before I was born. How am I supposed to learn to be a man, when all I’m given is Tony Soprano or Arnold Schwarzenegger? Perhaps something like this could provide an alternative path, but I remain skeptical.

One Response to A moral theory of game

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: