Look, men. When you are also able to get pregnant and have your life and bodily radically altered by pregnancy and childbirth, you’ll get to pick and choose who you have sex with, too. Until we can have the total biological equality you apparently desire so much, you’re going to have to live with a bit of gender inequality (sniffle! sob!)

Meanwhile, enjoy being the gatekeepers to love and commitment.

And men who are actually sexually desirable to women have no trouble getting laid, so work on that. Figure out why women don’t want you and fix it (hint: money has nothing to do with it. Misogynistic self-pity, on the other hand, sends most women running for the hills. Get a clue, or die alone. Your choice.)

If alphas don’t effect this revolution, who will?

I believe only Alphas can: women will follow them, and betas will follow the women.

t’s easy to see why anyone would think otherwise, given the proclivities of most Christian denominations. What many churches preach on these kinds of subjects is often diametrically opposed to the Bible.

Absolutely. The church needs to be reformed from within just as much as the culture needs to be reformed from without. She has deep psychic wounds from a century of feminism, just as every other institution does: professional life, military, academia. The only places surviving relatively unscathed are entrepreneurialism and high-level sports.

The “proclivities” have to be turned around, and to do that you can’t flee like sissies. You have to remain faithful to effect the reclamation in every part of your life, in every institution that even tangentially overlaps with your dominion.

Rollo finds it difficult to square this particular circle. It shouldn’t be, given the deep-rooted common causes you cite above. If we don’t square the necessary circles, who will? If alphas don’t effect this revolution, who will?

In churches that have held onto their orthodoxy, the feminist disease never reached the point of threatening the body. The new-wave faddish congregations will slide into history just as quickly as they appeared. Seriously. Openly gay bishops celebrating sodomy. Women in pink roman collars calling themselves “Reverend.” It’s like an inverted mass, a satanic parody.

Soi dissant alphas affect a pose of independence and believe this means they are too cool for communion. This dream of transcending all powers is the fantasy of every boy feeling his oats, a typical dream that attends a man’s introduction to power with no connection to reality. They think because they can challenge the idea of God without instant consequence they are themselves gods. It is a permanent feature of growing into one’s manhood. The delusion is punctured upon the first injury, the kid intimates his mortality, but by then he is so invested in the faux independence that he constructs entire philosophies based on a falsehood.

These philosophies will have a permanent audience so long as there are young men (and old men pining for recaptured youth). It’s not hard to get applause when you are flattering an adolescent’s sense of self. It is a symbiotic relationship.

“Religion” comes from the Latin re- ligere, to bind again, sharing its root with words like ligament and ligature. It is an inescapable, indispensable foundation for any lasting cause of any importance. We are bound together and we act in communion by shared principles, just like the PUA/game/alpha/men’s rights/seduction “community” moves in a certain direction due to its combined mutual efforts. You can’t escape religion, and you can’t evade a discussion of the impulse to bind together, even with the offhanded cliche about “organized” versus personal religiosity.

If gamesters were serious about reasserting their manhood on the world, if they weren’t so provincial and so easily satisfied with small ball, they would employ the tested, successful, and venerable means of “binding together” that hundreds of generations of men have used since culture immemorial. Christianity’s purposes are not at odds with their program.

In fact, the very idea that Christianity is feminine is itself a Marxist-feminist lie: A lie internalized and perpetuated by the unthinking, self-styled philosophers of every modern movement, including game. If you want to understand how deep the feminist rot goes, you have to have the balls to take a look at yourselves. You have to acquire the tools to examine the unchallenged principles you presume as given, the cryptoleftist myths you take for granted as settled.

It is the only topic of yours that requires a response from me. Apparently your other sometime-readers don’t see the inconsistency or the corrosiveness of your position. Yes, I am “[pro]voked” when half-formed theories threaten to spread misinformation contrary to the cause. The other side must be defended, and in defending, snuff out your wrong-headed, casually disseminated canards.

I know you are not “specifically opposed to the concepts of ethics, moralism or religion per se.” If you were specific, my janitorial job would be much easier. The problem is the generality of your swipes. It indicates an intellectual laziness that undermines your overall credibility. These just aren’t topics you think about much or deeply. Worse, you don’t understand the need for engagement at that level before repeating thoughtless platitudes.

“I’m sure it offends people of your sensibilities….”

Don’t be so “sure.” I am not offended. The force of your argument is not such that it can generate offense. I am peeved, not outraged. Yours is the prevailing understanding of the culture, and you are simply, obediently reiterating it. And I’m not sure what you mean by “people of your sensibilities.” Christians? Conservatives? Men? I don’t have sensibilities; I have theories, positions, philosophies, principles, and arguments — each supportable all the way down to bedrock, if you have the ability to go there.

If you’d truly “like to leave religion, at least in the organized sense, as a topic for another blog” then take care not to bring it up in maximum ignorance. It is strategically wise to leave aside the subjects to which you have nothing to contribute but regurgitated cliche. But the fact that you believe you can avoid certain areas of understanding indicates how poorly grounded your theories are. “It’s all in the game.”