Here’s a little theory and philosophy for the day:
“Morality is cowardice.”
I am listening to a lecture by Jordan Peterson. This guy — and by that I mean Peterson, not Nietzsche — is on fire right now. An incredible example of a sophisticated thinker, deeply embedded in academia, and yet wielding truth like a sword as he helps to vanquish PC Culture.
As students of game, we might take interest in him because of his deep understanding of myths and archetypes (how we present ourselves as sex-worthy men). As well as his sane and accurate read of the role of biology in mating and dating (no Dorothy, men and women are not “equal”). From those disciplines and others, he often says things that remind me of game.
Let’s get back to the quote from Nietzsche:
“What he meant by that was that, most of what people claim to be moral virtue, is merely their fear to do anything that they would actually like to do that society would deem inappropriate. Has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.”
— Jordan Peterson
If you look, you can see bluepill guys and game denialists in that quote.
You can also see the would-be daygamer that won’t approach… because he can’t handle that people might actually see him do what he truly wants to be able to do.
Many men willfully deny the potential impact of game on a man’s mating and dating opportunities. Those men must deny the tools that game offers, because they lacks the courage to make those tools effective. As we know, awareness of the structure/possibilities of something like daygame is not enough…
You have to be willing to go out and face rejection. Here we are onto the aspect of “cowardice” in the Nietzsche quote.
For many men, their fragile egos cannot begin to (eh-hem) “approach” the kind of rejection a player must face. To avoid the pain of rejection, a man will cut himself off from the truth of game entirely. He (and his ego) are safer when he sticks to Disney’s rules for how a man ought to behave.
It’s no surprise that he is also quick jump on the anti-player bandwagon. Either through doubts about the tactics themselves. Or at a larger level, questioning the “morality” of game in general. This is the White Knight.
He moralizes game to be wrong and players to be “bad men.” And that is ironic… as we are “bad men,” but none of this is wrong at all. Depends on where you want to spend your time as a man in the sexual marketplace.
“What they do is say, ‘I’m moral’, not ‘I’m cowardly.'”
— Jordan Peterson
Affection, entertainment, and pussy (and other rewards of game) sound enticing… but rejection… “so painful”… must not get rejected, not ever!… so… game… hmmm… hmmm… hmmmmmmm… game is evil!… it’s bad!… that’s why I don’t do it! Yes. whew Yes, that’s it. Must respect women. Must not game! Game is bad!!!
(I feel like RSD Julian as I type this ^ parody… I can see him playing the “moral man” for lolz.)
“Good men” avoid game because it’s bad. But as the Nietzsche quote illustrates, there is a lot of rationale there that is in place to help a man avoid looking at his own cowardice. His false-morality is at work to protect him from rejection. And to relieve him of the burden of work required of the player’s journey.
I’ll make this personal, and talk about my interest in very young girls… 18+. I couldn’t believe it, for years, as Tom and Krauser had stories of girls in that age group. I’ve mentioned this a lot as I get more experience with that demographic. And I had a lot of rationale for why “those girls were too young for me” over the last year (although it’s fading away). I have even judged Tom and Krauser, at some level, something like thinking of them as being “bad predators.” And there was certainly some cowardice in my attitude.
I still feel that cowardice on the streets sometimes… as I weasel out of sets… but I no longer think of this as having anything to do with morality.
Back to daygame… Krauser has a different angle on morality:
“Almost every daygamer wants to be the Nice Guy. He’s absorbed too many Disney fairytales and has turned to daygame to get the Good Girls and not those Nightclub Sluts. He’s kidding himself. The sexual market rules are always in effect. So drop your Disney fantasy. Daygame is dirty and animalistic.”
That’s right. Thank you, Krauser… once again. Daygame is dirty. The false-morality of cowardice again, the false-nobility, has no place to hide in our “dirty” understanding of the sexual marketplace.
Certainly, some aspects of game can be applied to tame, bluepill courtship and relationships… I did that myself. And yet there is clearly something to embrace in what Krauser is saying. We know how the sausage is made. The bad men of game know it is dirty, indeed.
“The dirty” isn’t an unpleasant cast-off of an otherwise “clean” process. The dirty isn’t a distasteful side dish. It’s the main course, in many ways.
What do women want?
Very often, what we find is that “bad men” are the best seducers. The best. Bad men aren’t on the moral fringes of the marketplace, they are on the throne, in the center.
One reason for that is that women want bad, dangerous men.
Meanwhile bluepill rhetoric plays on about the nice guy. The RomCom caricature of a man. This isn’t just about a natural percentage of beta’s in the population, it’s about explicit instructions from the culture to be more “nice”… which is to be more beta, in many ways.
“The insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness. Which is absurd. Women don’t even like harmless men, they hate them. They like to claw them apart.”
— Jordan Peterson
Some of these quotes from Peterson are from a different lecture, but the overall theme is retained… there is a relationship between the cultural message of the neutered nice guy and the common occurrence of moral cowardice in men.
And that line about women hating harmless men is a great comment about the psychology of women. Peterson, very much on point.
“What women want are dangerous men who are civilized. And they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.”
— Jordan Peterson
I first heard this line of thinking from Lance Mason, years ago, in his Zero Drama Dating product (one of the best products I’ve ever studied). Both Lance Mason and Peterson are talking about romance novels and female psychology.
And they are right. It’s part of my current relationship to seduction that I train each girl to see me as bad and dangerous… in a pleasing way. That’s the mix of dangerous and civilized. Or what I was talking about a lot when I was in Japan — “comfortable, yes, yes, but also exciting.”
So again… this “moral” man, the “nice guy,” we know he is off-track. Not only does his cowardice hold him back in the sense of entitlement, from approaching, from escalating, but his morality is a failed strategy itself. Make no mistake, the White Knights are horny, and their morality is in fact a type of sexual strategy, but a misguided and impotent one.
“The structure of Beauty and the Beast… that the female pornographic fantasy was: Wild guy, somewhat careless about the wants and desires of others, attractive to everyone (therefore high status), tamed by the magic of a single women and brought into a relationship with her.”
— Jordan Peterson
“Wild guy.” Yes. “Careless about the wants and desires of others.” That is a great line.
That carelessness is the part that stands out for me. That is one part “social freedom” and one part “stealing another guys lunch” (another Krauser-ism). That “not caring” is part of what the nice guy misses in his analysis of his role as a man. He thinks his constant-care, the “morality on his sleeve” is viable strategy with women. He confuses that nonsense with moral superiority… the poor fool.
Peterson’s is correct above when he says, “Women don’t even like harmless men, they hate them. They like to claw them apart.” We see this more in nightgame than daygame. In nightgame, girls will brutally reject the “too nice” man that somehow manages to try on an approach. In daygame the rejection of the nice guy is more subdued… she just won’t stop. She’s just not interested. She not only won’t return the ping text… she doesn’t even remember reading it.
Where is that wildness? That courage which is the antithesis of cowardice. Where is the careless bad boy?
This next quote from Peterson was also from his talk about Nietzsche:
“Part of the reason, for example, why people are so attracted to ‘bad guy stories’… you know criminals and serial killers, and all those sorts of people… vampires and that whole destructive force… is because those characters aren’t fearful. They are just what people would be like if they weren’t afraid.”
— Jordan Peterson
This is what the nice guy can’t face. He would be a player too, if he were not afraid. It is part of our thrill as men of game that we have conquered that fear in ourselves, or at least we can keep it bay while we hunt.
And part of what rocks a girl as you approach on the sidewalk is that you, Mighty Daygamer, are not afraid. And it shows. And she can feel it. You both know it, and that acknowledgment between you is hot.
She says, “Are you…?” And the look in your eyes says, “Damn right.” And thus begins the magic the daygamer offers that girl.
So let’s forget about the nice guy. She already has. Let’s talk about us. Bad boys… and the player’s lifestyle:
“How do you turn that into a game that can be played in a sustainable manner across large stretches of time without disrupting your entire life.”
— Jordan Peterson
That is a great point. I am dealing with this a lot in my life right now. I talked about how I often stop masturbating, to give myself more “intent.” And it works. Sheer libido makes me more focused on the street. But that super-charged intent makes it hard to focus on the rest of my life.
“There is a tension between chasing women and accomplishing other things in life. For all their seductive pleasures, women are dream killers.”
— Krauser, Adventure Sex
That sounds a bit dramatic, but I feel this comment in my life. There is a danger that my focus on game will lead me off the path of my larger purpose. I have talked about being “out of balance” before, particularly when I was in Japan. I spent so much time on the street… looking for trouble.
“Because that’s what you’re like. You’re gonna need trouble.”
— Jordan Peterson
Here Peterson gives us a great metaphor of the appeal and essence of the chaos that is women, and chasing women, and that lifestyle. And the chaos in the life of a man that is busy spinning plates. He’s not talking about our game in that quote, but “trouble” works well for what we’re after.
He is right that as a player, I “need trouble.” And I miss it when it’s in short supply.
“What I like doing the most: tracking, stalking and giving chase to prey.”
— Daygame in Shitsville
Daygame in Shitsville left this comment on my blog this month, and of course I loved it. Many daygamers will feel a hit when they read that line. Yes. Even a sniff of the spirit of his comment makes me want to hit the streets.
When I talk about tornadoes, and about the inherent “instability” that I cultivate when I try to work-up a proper Girl Tornado, I am talking about trouble. I’m so beyond false-morality, I’m actually hunting for trouble. When I’m frustrated, or envious of field reports like Roy Walker is giving us, it’s because I want that kind of trouble.
“If you’re an adventurous sort of person and you like to cause trouble… you better figure out how to cause quite a lot of trouble within the confines of your life in a way that doesn’t disrupt the entire structure.”
— Jordan Peterson
When Peterson says “doesn’t disrupt the entire structure,” he is not talking about game either (although, what a perfect story for our tribe). I think he is referring to the structure of your own life, which I talked about above. But let’s take his comment and use it as a lens for the larger society for a moment.
The lack of men that will properly enter and commit to the fraternity of players and seducers will remain small.
I’ll say that another way:
The “moral cowardice” of most men serves the greater civilization, as it keeps the total number of active players down to a reasonable percentage of the population.
Even if men didn’t have other valid priorities, most men don’t have the stones to do this… and never well. And consequently, most men will have zero-to-limited success in dating and mating. And marriage works as a counter-balance, to give them some public-cover for their lack of skill (each man gets a woman, often after she hits the wall… and even if she is getting some more on the side). She has her provider and she gets that little something “extra” from the player. And the player gets the lion’s share of women… and women in their prime.
It’s a careful balance of betas, women, and lions. That beta “morality” is part of the plan. A grand design.
Some of the more conservative men in the manosphere ask questions like: What if all men could run proper game? What would that mean for families? For stability? For our ability to focus and do the day-in, day-out work of keeping the ship afloat? How do we keep game from inspiring so much “trouble” it “disrupts the entire structure?”
Those are fair questions.
Our personal lives need good shepherding (and I know I have to keep an eye on that), but the grand design is eternally balanced. That ratio is in no danger of being upset by game.
Even in the years around 2005, as popularity of the book The Game started a wildfire that infected and inspired many us, this was still a narrow band of men. So many of us can trace our roots back to the stories of Mystery and Tyler Durden. And there was undoubtedly a wave of would-be courageous heroes inspired by that time… but it really had no impact on the larger culture. It’s not supposed to.
As I work my way through my thoughts on this topic I realize it’s clear I’m not at all upset at the “moral cowardice” of so many of my brothers. More for me, right? It’s just another thing to “see.” Part of the “real” education.
Most men will never get past their fear. I’m not judging them. In fact, I personally coach some friends of mine (and strangers, sometimes) to help them swallow the redpill and tease them into “the light.” But the grand design will keep most men in the position of beta. It’s better that way, for everyone involved.
“There are precious few R-selected men in the world so they act as aggregators. Twenty women may each have only one indiscretion but they all happen with the same man.”
And Krauser brings us home. It’s that grand design. I will post someday soon about my current formulation of the sexual marketplace… but it will be along the lines of what we’ve heard experienced men say before. And what Krauser is saying above.
While we players will need to be wise about how we balance the gluttony of our own pursuit with our greater purpose as men…. the overall grand design will be fine.
And the moral cowardice is fine, too, I suppose. Depends on what you want out of life.
Beta’s will use “morality” to help insulate them from the pain of a lack of sexual access… and the completely opposite pain of rejection.
Women will use a dual mating strategy, secrecy, and social manipulation to make sure they have access to resources, are safe within what appears to be a respectable position in the tribe. These same “respectable” girls will fuck R- selected bad men like us on the side, to complete the 2nd goal of their strategy — which is good, thrilling sex.
And the player will binge on the opportunities that are created by his discipline, his courage and his applied knowledge of game.
A bad man and a happy girl. Three is a crowd, and the overly “moral coward” need not apply. It’s better that way.