This post assumes basic familiarity with r/K selection theory, as well as Anonymous Conservative‘s work exploring how this relates to the two fundamental political stances of our species. I highly recommend that you buy his book The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics for an in depth analysis, but for the sake of this article a simple explanation will suffice (if you’re already familiar with his theory you can skip to the break).

An r-selected species is a reproduction focused species; this occurs in niches of abundance, where food is readily available. Under such conditions, it is the fastest reproducers who take over the genotype; breeding is rapid, while the investment in children is low. Think rabbits – endless fields of grass, lots of babies, the population numbers are culled by predators.

A K-selected species is a competition focused species; rather than predation, it’s the challenges of the environment which curtail the population. Having a large number of babies without the resources to invest in them will result in all the babies dying, so instead of quantity, the K-selected focus on quality. Think wolves: great care must be taken to achieve each meal, else they risk death by starvation or injury. Forethought and teamwork are vital, as is training the next generation of cubs.

Within species there will be a minor variation between r and K types, those who are more competitive, and those who have more children. Within humanity this causes a split into two political groups: r-types on the Left, and K-types on the Right.

So with that out of the way, let’s explore how this plays out in our mating habits.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

The Road by Cormac McCarthy’s is a critically acclaimed and terribly written novel, which foregoes the uses of quotation marks around dialogue to cover up the author’s inability to write compelling characters, and to make their statements seem deeper than they actually are. I do not recommend that you read it. The movie, on the other hand, is tolerable, and provides a terrifying insight into the Liberal mind.

The setting is this: a solar event kills off the bacteria in our soil, leading to the death of all plant life on Earth, which will lead to the eventual death of everything else, including ourselves. The world is now zero-sum: most of humanity has disappeared to suicide or war, and the people who remain have become vicious jackals. There are no good guys left, there is no hope for the future, and each can of beans that he eats, is one less can for you. All is death and rot and ruin, and all struggle is ultimately in vain.

And this is how Liberals actually think.

The world, in their mind, is finite. Emotionally, they cannot comprehend the manner in which the free market increases the total wealth of a society – some will benefit more than others, obviously, but the point is that everyone benefits because human industry and invention are amazing things. Their psychology – like that of the rabbit – is designed for a world of abundant resources, rather an efficient exploitation of those resources. Their natural assumption is that the grass will never run out, so when they see a disparity in wealth their knee-jerk reaction is to assume that an injustice occurred, that some secret cabal of rabbits has managed to hog all the grass for themselves. Furthermore, when they hear a rumour that the grass doesn’t go on forever, it throws them into a panic. They don’t have the instincts of the wolf – fine-tuned to assessing and managing hardship – so they turn to nihilistic viciousness, slaughtering each other and eating their own young.

I trust that the connection is obvious, between the above, and the Liberal stances on abortion, environmentalism, and immigration (as opposed to family planning, environmental stewardship, and nationalism). But let’s move this along; how does this apply to the way we seek mates? For simplicity’s sake I’m going to boil things down to two archetypal venues: the bar, and the club.

The club is zero-sum environment. On any given night, about 20% of the women will be looking for a one-night-stand, and a further 40% will be amenable to the idea. As a man seeking a woman, there is no advantage to going with a crew (aside from using one another as an ego-crutch to stay in the mood; I’d recommend tequila, instead). Every single guy that nabs one of the girls means one less girl for you, and we’re already starting off with bad odds (90% of the guys want a ONS, compared to only 20-60% of the women), so bringing a crew ultimately worsens your situation. There is virtually no possibility for teamwork (which is the whole point to having friends), there is only individual display. In the club, everybody is equal: cabals and conspiracies (also known as teams and organizations) are rendered impossible by the very nature of the place. In the club, every man is your enemy – and so are most of the women, either wasting your time, or actively cockblocking you.

This isn’t to say that it’s impossible to get laid in the club (quite the opposite, in fact), only that it’s an r-type environment. Success requires:

A selfish, individualistic strategy, bordering on the sociopathic

High short-term fitness (looks, dance skill, confidence)

Skilled target acquisition (finding the biggest slut)

Let’s contrast this to the bar.

Where the club is a zero-sum environment, the bar is a constructively competitive environment. That is to say, that each guy that attracts a girl to his orbit increases the probability that you’ll attract a girl to your orbit. The bar is all about teamwork and demonstrating long-term fitness. First of all, you and your friends can work together; merely by being there and having a good conversation you’re creating a node to attract women. Following that, you can help one-another in your pursuits: your buddy likes Asian girls? Talk him up in front of Miss Wong. The energy becomes infectious, and it makes all of you look good (not to mention that it distracts the cockblockers).

This whole time you’re also demonstrating long-term fitness traits: not just the surface traits that payoff in the club, but those of deeper value – wit, intelligence, the ability to network and be popular – the potential to build something bigger than a single night of rutting. The bar is all about cross-pollination.

Let’s put this in economic terms for a second: let’s say I own a restaurant, and you open up another restaurant next-door to me. To the zero-sum rabbit, all they see is that you’re stealing my business. To the wolf, you’re helping establish this street as the “Restaurant District.” Rather than fearing the competition, I welcome it. New customers will visit your location, and then – seeing mine next door – come to visit me the following week. We’ll specialize and network with each other, increasing profits for both of us.

At the bar, my buddy getting laid helps me.

At the club, my buddy getting laid harms me.

So what does all of this say about Game?

One thing I’ve noticed from Game critics is the repeated claim that it’s “just for picking up sluts in clubs,” or that “guys who use Game are [Liberal/r-type] degenerates,” and yet I can’t seem to recall a single Game article about Ed Hardy shirts, dance styles, or anything else that would work in the club. I’m sure they’re out there, but they seem to be few and far between. Instead the focus is on becoming more competitive. Not by psychotic “Alpha-Dogging” that would play well in the club (there are far more articles about fighting off the dickheads who do this), but by becoming more charismatic, more interesting, more courageous, and more manly – unlearning all the garbage we were taught about being ‘nice’ to women, and instead, calling them on their shit with amused mastery (aka patriarchal dominance). There’s teamwork and advice, and there’s sympathy for the blue-pill guys who get caught in feminist traps, but nowhere amongst the Game bloggers is there an attitude that “Every guy deserves to get laid,” – nope, men need to become more competitive and earn it.

Contrast to the Liberal/Feminist approach to sex: it celebrates women’s overweening hypergamy (just like the club), refuses judgmentalism (just like the club), while sissified male advocates of it hope that – by being a nice guy and accepting her as the slut she is – maybe she’ll be a slut for him, one day (yeah… one day, buddy).

The critics – whether they’re Liberals or allegedly right-wing puritanists – project the measly, rabbit-person cowardice onto Game, but when you actually examine it, its K-type nature becomes self-evident. Not only is it centered around competition and teamwork – it also works best on civilized, non-slutty women!

Now, sure – at the end of the day, Game is about getting laid in our modern, degenerate society. And, of course – I’m over-simplifying, boiling down complex & nuanced interactions into archetypal camps. And, yes – society would be a lot better off if women were getting married younger, and holding on to their virginity ’til their wedding night.

Give me a shout when that society reappears.

In the meantime, I’m sticking with my fellow K-types; men who deal with reality as it is, aren’t afraid of a challenge, and are trying to live the best life they can, while playing the hand they’re dealt.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel

My Twitter