Manosphere commenter Cane Caldo has a guest post at Dalrock responding to Dalrock’s piece, “Why Christian’s Need Game”.
Cane essentially argues that Christians don’t need game, but it seems he does not deny the effectiveness of game , rather from the comments it seems he thinks the PUA-attitude is an intrinsic part of game that Christians should reject. The disagreements in the thread seem to revolve mostly around the definition of the red pill and game, and whether game can be separated from the PUA-lifestyle or if playerdom is intrinsic to game .
I’m not going to get into that debate, instead, I’m going to look at what he said in the comments that I think is much more important.
Game is–as you say, and I agree–navigating the Feminist Matrix. Christianity means to burn it down.
No matter where you sit on the issue of game or it’s definition, game is playing in a feminist world; it still abides by the rules of feminism. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that; the current secular sexual market place and good portions of the Christian SMP are based around feminist rules and, as with any system, if you do not adapt to the rules of the system, you lose. You are stuck in the game, so try to “win”.
The problem exists where red-pill men treat game as the end. Whether the men settle for getting notches through game, getting a worthy wife for themselves, or go their own way, the problem is the same, they have settled for simply getting their own in the system. They may take a red pill in one area or two, but the big picture eludes them.
So, you can get notches through game, that’s great. So, you found a worthy wife, that’s awesome. For you, for now.
You are still trapped in the feminist-progressivist game. You may be “winning” the game, but you are still playing by its rules.
The end result of the manosphere should not be “winning the game”; the end goal is to destroy the game.
The feminist-progressivist game is corrupt. It is destroying the very fabric of the civilization we have spent centuries building.
We need to burn it to the ground and replace it with a better game.
Do not forget, game is fine, but it is only a stop-gap measure for temporary survival in a corrupt system; a system whose rules have infiltrated the church, families, business, government, and every area of our lives.
The purpose of the manosphere, of patriarchs, of the alt-right, of MRA’s, of PUA’s, of traditionalists, and of men in general should be to destroy the progressive-feminist system.
We need to burn it to the ground and salt the earth so we never suffer this corruption again.
“The purpose of the manosphere, of patriarchs, of the alt-right, of MRA’s, of PUA’s, of traditionalists, and of men in general should be to destroy the progressive-feminist system.”
In order to actually do this, open physical rebellion is probably necessary. Because of the raw power of our current system, most people seem awfully reluctant to consider this.
Balls. I meant to link to you in my inaugural post. Will be corrected by the time you see this.
Many thanks.
Stephen said:
The viability of an armed rebellion depends on how large the surplus single male population is and the status of the government’s fiscal health.
The divorce industry and the family court system is effectively increasing the amount of surplus single males. And the government’s fiscal health future doesn’t look good. I don’t think the feminists realize what a dangerous situation they are creating for themselves. I once argued with feminist lawyer who could not understand that the state’s authority comes from its ability to pay its armed agents, and the agents ability to win armed battles against the state’s enemies.