Cane Caldo is not Chesterton

Neither am I, for that matter, but I thought it was important to point out that Cane Caldo's post, entitled Vox vs Chesterton, is really not an accurate characterization.

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.

Who said anything about "success in the world" or "worldly success"? Cane Caldo is playing exactly the same game as Peter Boghossian and other atheist apologists who redefine faith in order to attack Christian faith. And in the process of doing so, he's made the same mistake as Karl Marx did with the labor theory of value. Success is not objective. It may be worldly or it may be spiritual. Success is subjective. It is defined by the one who seeks it. In the case of Game, it is literally in the eye of the beholder.

If you want to be rich, imitate the self-made wealthy naturals. If you want to date beautiful women, imitate the natural players. If you want a healthy marriage, imitate the happily married.

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....

Which is fine, but Cane is committing a simple category error here. Chesterton may have stated the foolishness of calling success good, but I simply haven't done that. I mentioned success. Cane is the one who called it good in order to attack it. Now, I do think that knowledge of Game is good because I think that Game is true. And if it is true, then it behooves the Christian man to know it, so that his actions are in accord with reality rather than with indoctrination to which he has been subjected.