Recently I’ve been told again that I have an improper understanding of Game; that my definition is not great because I put a great deal of focus both on the word and on the concept of seduction; which is enticement towards evil. It is stated, implied, and assumed that therefore I don’t understand what Game means, or what it is; that if I actually understood Game, or if I actually understood its application that I’d be able to–as a Christian–understand that it’s a matter of seducing the right woman into marriage. Not convincing (that’s something losers do), but getting a woman to like a man so much that she wants to have his babies, and that continuance of this seduction will lead to a happy wife happy life (enjoying her life, and happy do his bidding) scenario.
To be fair: Pro-Game folks hate that phrase. They’d much rather turn it around and say that Game stops a wife from being unhappy and from the man having an unhappy life. Damned if I can see the difference.
It’s also said–particularly by those of the Vox Day Alpha Game Plan persuasion–that an understanding of Game unlocks the secrets of a contented existence; not just in marital or sexual relations but across the human experience. In other words, it would open one’s eyes to the various things that the Neoreactionary and Dark Enlightenment folks have been going on about. With that in mind, let’s look at his definition of Game; written in response to my very first post in the Men’s Sphere, and hosted by my friend Dalrock.
Vox Day: A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them.
So, Game–in it’s broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized.
Now the first thing to accept if we accept Vox’s idea is that Christ failed at this. He was literally born in a barn (the very phrase we throw at those who have no civilization whatsoever) and slept where animals eat; symbolically, He was food for the stupidest animals, and not only animals, but the animals who are too stupid to remain wild. This all happens under suspicious circumstances, born to probably a teenage mother and a father who was not His biological father; without schooling, without wealth; indeed without ANY of the trappings that we consider worldly success. When He grew up He quit His job, and took up bumming around to tell a tiny beat-down nation of sell-outs, sheepherders, ragamuffins, and whores who cut on their sons’ genitals about a God they did not know.
At first, He got some followers; quite a lot of them. Then those throngs dwindled down to a mere 72, and then to 12 disciples; salt of the earth crackpots the lot of them. Eventually, each of those 12 would desert Him, and Jesus would be hung on the cross for (a whole lot of) something He didn’t do. After his death, the only one’s who gave a hoot about Him was a handful of spinsters. Pathetic.
I’m not the first to see this contrast between the story of Christ and the stories of worldly success, but I just wanted to lay it out very clear. Should any of my readers have the bad habit of thinking of themselves as conservative, reactionary, neoreactionary, traditionalist, etc. this old Chesterton chestnut should be right up your alley:
If the Jews had answered that question wrongly they might have lost all their after influence in human history. They might have sunk even down to the level of modern well educated society. For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job. If the Jews could be saved from it, the Book of Job saved them. The Book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement.
But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what a high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job.
Time for a rewind. Here’s Vox again on the good that is Game:
A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them.
Here’s Chesterton again on the foolishness of calling success good:
For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job.
Next time you’re chuckling at Heartiste’s Beta of the Month entry: Chew on that. Whom did God imitate–what kind of man did God assume–when He came to Earth, and what does that tell you about what He believes success to be, and who should be called good?
If God is the god who made families, and if the Bible tells us about how both are ordered: Why isn’t courtship and marriage the topic of discussion for family formation? Why are we instead discussing how to seduce properly; how to seduce the right woman? Why are we encouraging and women to marry the men to whom they have the most exciting physical response? Even if they try to mitigate it by looking for good provider traits–what the Hell kind of temptation is that to set? The whole idea of checking for sexual response first is perverse, and not in keeping with the tradition or what is assumed in the Bible.
None of this has anything to do with those things a man will, should, and can do with his bride once he has one. Can you slap her on the butt? Yes. Can you tease her? Can it be good for her to have some dread instilled in her by someone who loves her? Yes. What we’ve lost is the archaic definition of the word husbandry; as in the craft of husbands, and we lost the definition when we laid aside the wisdom. Gentile (non-Christian) wisdom for getting laid is not the way to go about getting it back.